Loading...
1998-11-24MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA *~tp_rgg_rg..~: All items listed u .nder the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. PAG____~E 3. *CONSENT AGENDA. *A. *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 1998, REGULAR MEETING ................................... 4462-4476 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING. (NOTE: MINUTES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING). *C. *D. *E. *F. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 1998, COMMFFFEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. (NOTE: MINUTES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING). SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 98-65, UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, RICHARD KRYCK, 5986 SUNSET ROAD, PID 14-117-24 42 0065. SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998. ........................ 4477 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PIDS 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052 & 14-117-24 41 0058. SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998. ........................ 4478 APPROVE REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REGRADE A PORTION KINGS ROAD AS IT RELATES TO ITS VACATION. (NOTE: POSC REVIEWED CASE AT ITS 11/12/98 MEETING AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO TWO CONDITIONS. PLEASE SEE MINUTES ENCLOSED) ......................... 4479-4488 e *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS. ................................... 44894508 E~ VARIANCE CONTINUATION, TO ALLOW AFTER THE FACT IMPROVEMENTS ?0 ALLOW STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BEACH HOUSE, ANN & BOB HUNT, 5319 BARTLETE BLVD., LOT 28, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 70, PID 24-11%24 24 0025. (NOTE: PLANNING OMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL. HANUS MADE A REQUEST AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING THAT THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOATHOUSES BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION) .................... 4509-4551 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION RE: APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY. (NOTE: INTERVIEWS WERE HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998.) ORV BURMA WAS RECOMMENDED TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF GORDON TULBERG, TERM EXPIRES 12/31/99... 4552- 4555 INFORMATION/lWSCEf.LANEOUS: E. F. G. Financial Report for October 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Directm4556-4557 LMCD Mailings ........................................ 4558-4568 Memorandum from Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven and SRA attorney, re: Wireless Telecom Tower Siting-Virginia Beach Case ...................... 4569 "Policy Informer" published by the National League of Cities ............ 4579-4573 Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 1998 ................. 4574-4577 Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of November 12, 1998 .......... 4578-4583 REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26 AND FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27 IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING DAY HOLIDAYS. REMINDER: ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1998, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M., AL & ALMA'S. Please RSVP to Jodi by December 8% REMINDER: TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998, 7:30 P.M. Continued hearing date is Monday, December 14, 1998. 4461 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 10, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens: Mayor Elect Pat Meisel, Councilmember Elect Bob Brown, Margi Raines, Frank Weiland, Paul Haik, John Quist, Daryl & Merritt Geyen, Darleine Kotila, Tom & Margaret Dreissen, Elaine Kramer, Michelle Alexander, Mike Chitko, steve Behnke, Bob Abdo, Thomas Stokes, Mary McCurdy, Deborah & Mark McCurdy, Ralph Bauer, Donna Smith, Mary Ann Sells, Lois Sage, Bruce Olson, Lee Severtson, Kris Huspek, Josh Esse, Keith Clark, Tim Becker, Holly Schulter, Gary Wambold, Marshall Weber, John Rasmussen, Liz Nerd, Bob & Sheila Smith, Katy & John Bill, and Bonnie Aarsvold. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 1.0 *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. · 1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4, 1998, CANVASSING MEETING. MOTION Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 CASE 98-56: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO CREATE 3 LOTS FROM 2 EXISTING LOTS, MARY ANN SELLS AND AL SAGE. 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD. AND 6351 LYNWOOD BLVD. LOT 1. BLOCK 1. ANDERSON ONE, PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 33 0016 AND 14-117-24 33 0007, RESOLUTION g98-122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD AND 6351 LYNWOOD BLVD, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDERSON AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 33 0016 AND 14-117-24 33 0007, P & Z CASE//98-56 Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. .1.4 APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) FOR 1998-99, RESOLUTION #98-123 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) FOR 1998-99 Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.5 BID AWARD: CBD(CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) SNOW PLOWING RESOLUTION #98-124 RESOL~ON AWARDING THE BID FOR THE CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) SNOW PLOWING TO WIDMER Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.6 PAYMENT OF BILLS, MOTION Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. 2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-$5: STREET VACATION, LONGFORD ROAD, KII.DARE ROAD AND KINGS LANE, FINE LINE DESIGN, P.O. BOX 1611, BURNSVILLE, MN. City Planner Loren Gordon explained that this is a request for the vacation of the following unimproved streets: Longford Road, Kings Lane and a portion of Kildare Road. He reported that the Planning Commission recommended vacating the portion of Kildare Road that abuts Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, Seton up to Kings Lane. The Park Commission unanimously recommended denial of any vacation along these unimproved roads because of future linkages to trails and general access to the lake. The Dock and Commons Commission had a split vote, 2 in favor, 1 nay and 1 abstention, for approval of the street vacation of the three unimproved roads. He explained that what the Council is considering tonight is vacation of a portion of Kildare Road, from Kings Lane, abutting Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, Seton. The applicant, the Developer of Seton Bluff, has agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff recommends approval. Councilmember Hanus stated he does not feel there is public access to Longford Road. He felt that the Planning Commission and the Park Commission were lead to believe there was public access to Longford Road and that is wrong. Hanus felt that the only Commission that had the correct information, was the Dock & Commons Commission. He then quoted the Park Commission Minutes of October 8, 1998, which reads, in part, as follows:" ...... Recommend denial of the vacation request of Longford Road, Kings Lane and Kildare Road based on the finding that public access is still possible and it may be necessary ........ "Councilmember Hanus stated the public access is not currently there and does not exist. ". ...... Kings Lane is a continued access to that area ...... "(he is assuming "that area" refers to Longford Road. ". ........ the vacation does not comply with City Code, Section 255:20 indicating the public policy of the City of Mound which is to strive to: a)present and future residents of the City an unpolluted environment; b) provide access to lakes and streams in the community; ..... (Councilmember Hanus again stated that access does not exist now, so we are not taking anything away). "c) provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recreational enjoyment." Councilmember Hanus stated, "Now we're talking about accessing areas that vary from zero feet wide to 3 feet to 10 feet, but it's mud, cattails and reeds. Also in some of those findings there was talk about benefiting by way of controlling the bluff, but the bluff is on private property, so there is no benefit. All of the findings that he found from both Commissions are pointless. There is nothing there." Councilmember Hanus then asked the Planner if there is access or not to Longford Road. The Planner stated that the word access seems to be the problem and in his opinion there is lake access from Kings l_atne and Longford Road. Councilmember Weycker stated that what was proposed at the POSC was the vacation of Longford Road, Kings Lane and a portion of Kildare which would totally cut off access to the lake. Councilmember Hanus stated that since Kings Lane is only 30 feet wide, docks could not be put on this area because they would not meet the setbacks. Councilmember Hanus stated he is looking for reasons not to vacate but he has not heard any yet. Staff's opinion originally was that there was no public use for it. There were some comments in the'minutes that these unimproved right-of-ways have to serve a public purpose or benefit the public to vacate, yet the MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 proposed resolution states that at least part of it benefits the public to get rid of it but gives no reasons. Hanus asked what applies to Kildare and not the remaining roads. He stated he sees no public use for Kings Lane or Longford Road. The Planner explained that the Planning Commission and the POSC felt that the portion of Kildare that abuts Lots 24 and 25 is more unusable than Kings Lane because of the topography. He further explained that Kings Lane is relatively flat and could be used for public access to the lake. Steven Behnke, Fineline Design, stated that the approximate ordinary high water level line shown is not consistent with what their surveyors found on the site. He stated that the 929 contour actually comes down into the intersection of Kings Lane and Kildare Road. He then referred to the holding pond construction which will extend into the Kildare Road right-of-way abutting Lots 24 and 25. This is why they are requesting the vacation of this portion of Kildare Road. He stated they have a plan that has been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the fact that if certain areas were vacated it could cause some lots to become land locked. Councilmember Hanus pointed out that this whole issue of vacation of these right-of-ways came about because of docks. We have a situation here where we've got a certain amount of City land that we can count into the Dock Program. The applicants have submitted an application for a multiple dock in the area and have been granted that. He stated that we have an opportunity here to make a decision. We can either keep it in the public program and license the docks that are there. But in order to do that, there are more docks there than what the public land provides in linear feet to produce the BSU's (boat storage units) in the area. The applicant stated he figures there is approximately 450 feet of lakeshore. Councilmember Hanus stated that is counting the private land and the City cannot count that. The applicant stated he is looldng at this in two ways. If it remains Commons Dock, there is 450 feet which allows 9 docks. If it's private, there is 450 feet and its 9 docks. Councilmember Hanus stated the City cannot count all that private shoreline that cuts across the development, because not all of that shoreline is public land. The applicant argued that the City can count noncontiguous lakeshore and the developer can only count contiguous lakeshore. The applicant feels that either way they will be allowed 9 docks. The developer feels that if this land is keep in the dock program, there will be a net gain of 1 dock to the program. Councilmember Hanus did not agree with this. Councilmember Hanus stated that if Longford is vacated, we loose a little City shoreline, but we don't have to draw BSU's from other portions of the City dock program. Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels there would not be 7 individual docks going out because they have a homeowners association situation here and the LMCD will push for a multiple dock, like the applicant is proposing now. Mr. Behnke stated that the Homeowners Association documents are filed and they do represent a multiple dock.' If Longford were vacated, it would not be assigned to the individual lots adjacent. It would be Association owned 4 C MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER I0, 1998 land. Councilmember Hanus asked Councilmember Weycker why the POSC wanted to retain Kings Lane. Councilmember Weycker stated that it is public access to the lake. She felt the dockage was not an issue at the POSC. The issue was lake access. She did not feel it is in the public interest to vacate Kings Lane or Longford Road. Councilmember Hanus asked about how the POSC felt about just vacating a portion of Kildare abutting Lots 24 and 25. Councilmember Weycker stated that was not proposed at the Park Commission. She ~ould like to see this go back to the POSC for this. Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-125 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED PLATTED CITY RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS KILDARE ROAD ADJACENT TO LOTS 24 & 25, BLOCK 11, SETON, P & Z CASE//98- 55 Councilmember Weycker stated that the second Whereas should read as follows: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any partel_ thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and, Councilmember Weycker asked that the fourth Whereas read as follows: WHEREAS, the vacation request was reviewed by the City staff, Park Commission, Docks & Commons Commission, and the applicable utility companies, ,~. ................. .~ ..~ :.,~,:r.~.~ ..... *':~"':"~ '^ '*' ...... ':~ In addition it appears to be in the public's interest to vacate this right-of-way as it does not have a public use; and, She asked for the deletion because the Park Commission did object to the vacation. Councilmember Hanus commented that relative to the docks that has not been addressed is that what this is allowing is, even though it is a pretty enclosed situation here, the City is allowing homeowners who own private lakeshore to use City Commons Docks. There is a provision in section 320 that allows that, but they would be last on the priority list. He asked if this is precedent setting. Councilmember Weycker asked the developer if what Councilmember Hanus said is accurate, because she thought there was a private dock as well as a multiple dock and the private dock came off their lakeshore lot. Mr. Stokes stated that was correct. The private lots will put in their own docks. There are two lots that qualify as private lakeshore and will not be using the multiple dock. There will be 6 slips on the multiple dock. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 The Council discussed adding language to the resolution to cover retaining utility easements in the vacated land. Under the Now, Therefore be it Resolved add the following: The City of Mound reserves an easement for utility and drainage purposee over, under and across that part of the above described vacated Kildare Road. Mr. Behnke then asked for clarification of a statement in the Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1998, that read as follows: "Mueller clarified the status of the property that it would require a public lands permit to do the grading (in the intersection of Kings Lane and the vacated portion of Kildare Road) and the ownership would remain the City's." Mr. Behnke stated the Building Official, Jon Sutherland, stated this would be handled as an amendment to their grading permit not a public lands permit. Mr. Behnke stated he thought this would all be taken care of here or as an amendment to the grading permit. He did not want to have to apply for a Public Lands Permit. The Council asked which Commission would see this if it were a Public Lands Permit Application to grade at the intersection of Kings Lane and Kildare. The Planner stated it would go to the Park and Open Space Commission for review and recommendation. The Council discussed the fact that if the applicant wanted this, he should have applied for a public lands permit at the same time he applied for the vacation. The Council did not feel they should grant this before it goes through normal channels. The Planner stated he was not aware of the conversation Mr. Behnke had with Mr. Sutherland about the grading issue being handled as an amendment to his grading permit. The Planner further stated that at the last Planning Commission Meeting they were trying figure out how this ponding facility would work and how it could be moved onto the vacated portion of Kildare Road. At that time it was thought there was some area that they would have to blend out into the Kings Lane intersection, which will not be vacated. It was then decided, the developer would need to get a Public Lands Permit. The Council was not comfortable granting a Public I_ands Permit, at this time, because it could set a precedent that they did not want to do by skipping the POSC review and recommendation. The Council also wanted to have the City Engineer review design of the ponding facility. The City Attorney stated that the Council could approve this subject to the POSC review and recommendation. The Mayor stated he is opposed to this. Councilmember Hanus reminded the Council that a vote on the Public Lands Permit requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. The vote on the vacation Resolution//98-125 was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney advised that if the Council would like to deal with the Public Lands Permit tonight, the motion would be: "A motion to permit Land Alteration Permit under Section 320 of the City Code, subject to consideration and consent by the Park & Open, Space Commission at its next meeting." MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1~)8 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Land Alteration Permit under Section 320 of the City Code, subject to consideration and consent by the Park & Open Space Commi~ion at its next meeting and approval of the pondlng design by the City Engineer. The vote was 4 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carried. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-61: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, 6351 LYNWOOD BLVD. AND 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD., ALFRED SAGE AND MARY ANN SELLS, PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDERSON ONE, PID 14-11%24 33 0007 AND 14-117-24 33 0016. The City Planner explained the request that this is the second stage to what was done on the Consent Agenda, Case//98-56. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-126 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2232 WESTEDGE BLVD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDERSON ONE, PID # 14-117-24 33 0016, P & Z CASE//98-61 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-62: ONE YEAR REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERM1T FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, 5201 PIPER ROAD, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0156. The City Planner explained that this item was before the Planning Commission on October 26, 1998. It is a one year review for a Conditional Use Permit that was issued for building improvements to A1 & Alma's Supper Club. The Planner reported that the improvements have been completed over the last year and the project is complete. Staff did a review on it a couple of weeks ago and found that the conditions that were attached to that approval in Resolution//97- 104, are in compliance. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Councilmember Hanus stated that he thought there was some confusion about the parking on the southerly lot. He stated that one of the conditions that the Planning Commission recommended adding was that non-commercial or non-business related parking would be allowed there. He stated he did not see this reflected in the proposed resolution. He asked if this was really the lot that was being referred to. The Planner stated the original resolution (//97-104) did not state 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 what the vacant lot was. It should have referred to Lot 1, Block 12. He stated that was clarified at the Planning Commission and determined to be the lot that was for non-customer parking. Councilmember Hanus then referred to resolution//97-104,//2, which reads as follows: "The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be allowed." He stated that he thought the Planning Commission recommended that business related parking not be allowed. The Planner stated that is the way he understood it, that customers of A1 & Alma's could not use that vacant lot for parking, but it would not preclude Daryl & Merritt Geyen from parking their personal vehicles on the lot. Hanus thought this should be included in the proposed resolution to clarify the situation. The Planner agreed. The Mayor opened the public hearing. He then acknowledged that numerous letters were received and are in the Council packet and are part of the public record. The following people spoke in favor of A1 & Alma's Conditional Use Permit: MARGI RAINES stated she is here also on behalf of Bill Voss and read the following letter: "We would like to offer the following comments regarding the Public Hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for A1 & Alma's restaurant. We are offering these comments not only as citizens of Mound residing on the "Island" but as REALTORS with Coldwell Banker Bumet licensed out of the Lake Minnetonka office. In our weekly sales meeting held on October 26th, 1998 we conducted a poll of 30 Realtors assembled as to their opinion on the effect A1 & Alma's restaurant has on the Real Estate market on the Island and lake Minnetonka area. All agents unanimously agreed that the restaurant has not diminished Real Estate values and can be considered an attractive amenity for the Lake Minnetonka area. Several comments were made that A1 & Alma's is a "landmark" and a prominent feature that certainly has historical significance. Many agents were shocked to think that A1 & Alma's restaurant would be threatened with the loss of their Conditional Use Permit. In summary A1 & Alma's restaurant is an asset to the City of Mound and has a positive effect on the quality of life and housing values in the neighborhood." Thank You, Bill Voss 4608 Kildare Road Mound, MN 55364 Margi Raines 5100 Drummond Rd. Mound, 55364 MOUND CITY COUNCIZ, MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MARY MC CURDY, 5420 3 Points. Blvd. BOB BROWN, 5450 3 Points Blvd. DONNA SMITH, 2531 Avon Drive The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Hanus asked that the following amendments be made to the proposed resolution: PROPOSED RESOLUTION RF_~OLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDmONAL USE PERMIT AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID # 25-117-24 21 0156 PZ CASE # 98-62 WHEREAS, Resolution #97-104 required a one year review to verify compliance; and WHEREAS, the request was to permit an expansion of their restaurant; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that substantial compliance has been achieved; and WltEREAS, the restaurant is defined as a Class 1 (Traditional Restauran0 which is allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves the existing conditional use permit as stated in Resolution # 97-104 for Al and Alma's Supper Club with the following revision: 1-- The vacant lot south of the building, Lot 1, Block 12, Whipple remain as undeveloped and that business related parking not be allowed. 2. The river rock be allowed to substitute for the landscaping. 3. No further scheduled reviews are required. The Council agreed. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as amended above: RESOLUTION #98-127 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID # 25-117-24 21 0156, P & Z CASE # 98-62 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 LEGAL REVIEW OF TITLE ON CI-IF~$TER PARK PROPERTY AS IT PERTAINS TO USAGE BY AL & ALMA'S SLIPPER CLUB, The City Attorney reviewed his Memo, dated November 5, 1998. SUBJECT: Use Restrictions Applicable to Chester Park At its September 22, 1998 meeting the Council directed me to report back to it at its November 10th meeting concerning any use restrictions found in the real estate rifle records which limit the use of Chester Park. Specifically, the Council was interested in whether any restrictions exist which would impact on the operation of A1 &Alma's Supper Club. The direction of the Council was limited to matters of real estate rifle; and my continents here do not include a discussion of any restrictions which may exist by operation of the City's land use requirements or other regulations. Chester Park is located on land which is legally described as Lot 24, Whipple Shores, Mound, Minnesota (the "Property"). The Property is owned by the City of Mound; and rifle is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 448395. The Property was conveyed to the City by Warranty Deed dated October 10, 1969. The deed of conveyance contained several restrictions: the Property "at all rimes be open to the use of the general public and particularly for the use of property owners on Island Park, so as to afford them lake shore privileges; the Property shall not be diverted from the specific purpose or purposes above designated without the written consent of said Tuxedo Park Company, its successors or assigns; the Property shall not be used for any commercial purpose, nor for the benefit of any one individual or group of individuals for the furtherance of their own particular interest; 10 do MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 the Property shall not be used for the launching or docking of boats. At the September 22 Council meeting, the question was raised whether certain activities relating to the operation of Al & Alma's were in violation of any of the referenced restrictions. Based upon the material presented at that meeting I conclude that they are not. Al & Alma's principal restaurant location is south of Chester Park across Piper Road on property legally described as Lots 1 through 3, Block 8, Whipple. In addition, A1 & Alma's maintains off site parking on Lots 20 through 23, Block 9, Whipple and maintains a dock located on Lot 23, Whipple Shores immediately east of Chester Park. While a number of points were raised by the public at the September 22 meeting, only one seemed to relate in any way to the title restrictions cited above. That point involved the use of Chester Park by patrons of Al & Alma's who were congregating in, or crossing through the park on the way to or from the boat dock on Lot 23. The crossing or congregating in the park does not seem to involve any potential violation of restrictions a, b, or d above. Moreover, I cannot conclude that it suggests a violation of restriction c. above. The crossing of the park is at the option of the patrons to cross the park rather than to use the adjacent pathway provided by A1 & Alma's on Lot 23; and congregating in the park is a public right actually granted in restriction a. above. It is clear that the presence of the commercial activity has had an impact on the park and upon others who use it, but there is no suggestion that Al & Alma's has attempted to capitalize on use of the park in the promotion of its commercial activities. Consequently, I cannot find that the park is used for commercial purposes or in furtherance of the interests of Al & Alma's. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.11 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A HEARING OFFICER TO HEAR AN APPEAL OF A WETLANDS CONSERVATION (WCA) EXEMPTION REOUEST FOR TIMOTHY BECKER AND DALE AND LOREI.L BECKER AT 5331/5341/5351/5361 THREE POINTS BLVD '- The City Attorney explained that there is a process that the City has been pursuing, involving a certain request by the attorney representing the Beckers, for a filling within the floodplain which raised traditional wetland issues. As a result of that, a (TEP) Technical Evaluation Panel was convened which provided certain reports to the City and the applicant has appealed the report from the TEP. BWSR (Board of Water and Soil Resources) has referred the matter back to the City indicating that before it will consider an appeal by the applicant, they are requesting that the City conduct a hearing and make 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 a record and provide BWSR with findings and conclusions supporting its decision. After receiving that information, the City examined its ordinances and determined that it really did not have an ordinance in place that specifically dealt with and appeal of this type. Therefore, the City needed to come up with a potential mechanism which might fit the nature of the matter, provide for adequate due process, and also provide for the creation of a record which would be useful for consideration by BWSR, recognizing that this is a relatively technical issue. It was the result of that which has mused the City Attorney to recommend to the City Council, that the hearing process occur at the level of consideration of the evidence by a hearing examiner appointed by the City Council who would then follow the hearing process, make written recommendations of findings to the City Council, which then the Council could act upon. A proposed resolution was submitted to the Council for consideration. Paul Haik, attorney for Dale Becker, addressed the Council. He did not agree with the City Attorney in appointing a hearing examiner. He asked that the Council hear the case and make a decision without appointing a hearing examiner. Mr. Haik made a presentation claiming that the area in question is not and never will be a wetland area under the Wetland Conservation Act. He claimed there were misstatements and objected to the entire process because he feels it is an unlawful act. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Haik if it is his opinion that these are buildable lots, and he can maintain all setbacks required in that zone, with no variances? Mr. Haik responded, yes, that is not a problem. He stated they may have to combine three lots into two lots and have it rezoned to R-lA. Mr. Haik is claiming the area is not a wetland. Mr. Haik also objected to not being able to participate in the selection of the individual who will be the hearing examiner. The City Attorney explained the process that will take place with the hearing examiner. The City Council will then have written findings on which to base their decision. Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-128 RESOLUTION APPOINTING HEARING EXAMINER IN THE CASE OF THE APPEAL OF BECKER Councilmember Weycker asked if the City could get another recommendation from another hydrologist to clarify the data, as opposed to taking this to a hearing examiner? The City Attorney stated that there may be conflicting information here and there may be a significant amount of data that the City would want to have a heating examiner review. He advised that all the persons involved in this have taken the position that this is the approach to take. The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker abstaining. Motion carried. Mr. Haik objected to Karen Marti being the hearing examiner. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUIE$- NOVEMBER I0, 1998 1.12 RF~T FOR STREET LIGHT ON BEACHWOOD ROAD. The City Manager advised that the City Council had previously approved this request subject to the neighborhood supporting the installation of the light. He reported that the Police Chief sent a memorandum to all he persons affected and only received one objection to the street light. Councilmember Weycker stated she does not see this as an objection, but rather as the person does not think the light is necessary. The Council authorized the installation of the street light as proposed at the September 22, 1998, City Council Meeting, Resolution g98-105. 1.13 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION RE: DOCK ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS AND CHANGES TO DOCK LOCATION MAP. The City Manager stated this was put on the Agenda in error and should not come before the Council until January, 1999. No action taken. 1.14 EXECUTIVE SESSION: THREATENED LITIGATION - NETKA PROPERTY, 2313 COMMERCE BLVD. The Council went into Executive Session at 9:40 P.M. to discuss threatened litigation, regarding the Netka property at 2313 Commerce Blvd. The City Attorney advised that the City has received notice from an individual of an intent to commence legal action against the City on the basis of certain activity he is claiming the City has been involved in. The City Attorney advised the City Council to meet in Executive Session to discuss that litigation and strategy as to how to proceed with respect to that litigation. He further advised that the plaintiff's attorney has made a proposed settlement offer that needs to be discussed. The City Council returned from Executive Session at 10:43 p.m. The City Attorney reported that the City Council heard a report from the City's attorney concerning the threatened litigation. The City Council provided the City's Attorney with direction as to how to proceed. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1998. B. Minutes and financial information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). 13 De Ko Le MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Thank you letter from the St. Peter Police Department to the Mound Police Department for the assistance we provided to the City of St. Peter during the March 290~ tornado. List of At-Large appointments from various Hennepin County commissions and boards that are due to expire soon. Vacancies will be formally announced later. Please note that the MCWD appointments are expiring in March 1999. We want to pay particular attention to those appointments as they draw near. Applications for the DCAC are enclosed. They are from non-abutters and will be interviewed by the DCAC at their next meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 1998. The City Council is invited to attend the interviews. Recommendations will be heard at the November 24, 1998, Regular City Council meeting. The City Manager reported that all the applications for the DCAC are from non-abutters. REMINDER: LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GROUNDBREAKING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998, 8:30 A.M., AT THE LOST LAKE SITE. I WOULD LIKE EACH OF YOU TO BE PREPARED TO SPEAK AT THE GROUNDBREAKING. WE WILL HAVE A TENT AT THE SITE, WITH A SOUND SYSTEM, CHAIRS, COFFEE AND DONUTS, ETC. A BANNER WILL BE PLACED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE LOST LAKE SITE ALONG WITH BALLOONS TO CELEBRATE THIS HISTORIC OCCASION. WE HAVE INVITED OVER 250 PEOPLE AND WE HOPE TO HAVE 50-100 PEOPLE ATTEND. WE HOPE THE WEATHER WILL COOPERATE! REMINDER: VETERAN'S DAY HOLIDAY IS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11. CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERAN'S DAY. REMINDER: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1998, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: COMMITlrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1998, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: ANNUAL TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1998, 6:30 P.M. REMINDER: HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998, 7 P.M. REMINDER: WCCB MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THL~RSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998, 5:30 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. 14 Ow MOUND CITY COUNCI~ MINIJ~'E$- NOVEMBER ~0, ~8 REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26 AND FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27 IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING DAY HOLIDAYS. REMINDER: ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1998, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M., AL & ALMA'S. INVITATIONS WILL BE SENT WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. REMINDER: WCCB REPRESENTATIVES ARE INVITED TO ATFEND THE NOVEMBER 9TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 15 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CASE #98-65 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5986 SUNSET ROAD, LOT 30, MOUND SHORES PID # 14-117-24 42 0065 P & Z 98-65 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 1998 to consider the approval of a utility easement vacation located within the R-1Single Family Residential zoning district. ~ ~ SuNSE~ All persons appearing at said hearing with reference _to the given the opportunity to be heard at , ,. f'-' Kris Li~/.q-u~, P~,~ ~' Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on November 24, 1998 ~bove will be ~Secre~ar'y Published in the Laker, November 28, 1998 printed on recycled paper "MINUTES-SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1998 The meeting was ca/led to order at 7:30 p m at Mound Ci Mayor Andrea Ahrens; CouncP,~---- ;'~ ' . ty Hall. Members Present: Acting -,,,,,-~ucrs Marius, Jensen and Weycker. Absent and excused: Mayor Bob Polston. Also Present: Mayor-Elect Pat Meisel, Councilmember-Elect Bob Brown, Finance Director Gino Bus~o and City Manager Ed Shukle. The only item on the agenda was the proposed 1999 budget. Councilmember Ahrens asked how the Council would like to proceed on this matter. Staff reviewed some corrections to the budget related to costs associated with regular salaries, temporary salaries and overtime costs. Also discussed was the annual sealcoat program and various questions with regard to department functions and operations. It was made clear that the Council was not interested in adopting a 12% tax levy increase. They discussed a 6% increase and asked that staff return with some changes to the budget that would reflect a 6% tax levy increase. In addition, consensus by the Council was that they needed additional time to deliberate on the budget. They indicated that the budget discussion should continue and that this discussion should take place as part of the Committee of the Whole agenda scheduled for November 17, 1998. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Weycker and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 1612) 472-0600 FAX (~t 2) aT~-O~O CASE//98-64. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE USE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LENGTHY LEGAL, LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD PID # 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052 & 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-64 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 1998 to review the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Community Center at 5600 Lynwood BIvd located within the B-1 Central Business Zoning District and within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. ~ ~,~.,~ All porsons appearin~ at said hearin~ with referenco Io tho above will be even tho opportuniW to bo heard at this meetin~ .... ~~~t, Pl~>ai~ecretary Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on November 24, 1998 Published in the Laker, November 28, 1998 printed on recycled paper MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-55: STREET VACATION, LONGFORD ROAD, KILDARE ROAD AND KINGS LANE, FINE LINE DFSIGN, P.O, BOX 1611, BURNSVILLE, MN, City Planner Loren Gordon explained that this is a request for the vacation of the following unimproved streets: Longford Road, Kings Lane and a portion of Kildare Road. He reported that the Planning Commission recommended vacating the portion of Kildare Road that abuts Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, Seton up to Kings Lane. The Park Commission unanimously recommended denial of any vacation along these unimproved roads because of future linkages to trails and general access to the lake. The Dock and Commons Commission had a split vote, 2 in favor, 1 nay and 1 abstention, for approval of the street vacation of the three unimproved roads. He explained that what the Council is considering tonight is vacation of a portion of Kildare Road, from Kings Lane, abutting Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, Seton. The applicant, the Developer of Seton Bluff, has agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff recommends approval. Councilmember Hanus stated he does not feel there is public access to Longford Road. He felt that the Planning Commission and the Park Commission were lead to believe there was public access to Longford Road and that is wrong. Hanus felt that the only Commission that had the correct information, was the Dock & Commons Commission. He then quoted the Park Commission Minutes of October 8, 1998, which reads, in part, as follows:" ...... Recommend denial of the vacation request of Longford Road, Kings Lane and Kildare Road based on the finding that public access is still possible and it may be necessary ........ "Councilmember Hanus stated the public access is not currently there and does not exist." ....... Kings Lane is a continued access to that area ...... "(he is assuming "that area" refers to Longford Road. " ......... the vacation does not comply with City Code, Section 255:20 indicating the public policy of the City of Mound which is to strive to: a)present and future residents of the City an unpolluted environment; h) provide access to lakes and streams in the community; ..... (Councilmember Hanus again stated that access does not exist now, so we are not taking anything away). "c) provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recreational enjoyment." Councilmember Hanus stated, "Now we're talking about accessing areas that vary from zero feet wide to 3 feet to 10 feet, but it's mud, cattails and reeds. Also in some of those findings there was talk about benefiting by way of controlling the bluff, but the bluff is on private property, so there is no benefit. All of the findings that he found from both Commissions are pointless. There is nothing there." Councilmember Hanus then asked the Planner if there is access or not to Longford Road. The Planner stated that the word access seems to be the problem and in his opinion there is lake access from Kings Lane and Longford Road. Councilmember Weycker stated that what was proposed at the POSC was the vacation of Longford Road, Kings Lane and a portion of Kildare which would totally cut off access to the lake. Councilmember Hanus stated that since Kings Lane is only 30 feet wide, docks could not be put on this area because they would not meet the setbacks. Councilmember Hanus stated he is looking for reasons not to vacate but he has not heard any yet. Staff's opinion originally was that there was no public use for it. There were some comments in the, minutes that these unimproved right-of-ways have to serve a public purpose or benefit the public to vacate, yet the 3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 proposed resolution states that at least part of it benefits the public to get rid of it but gives no reasons. Hanus asked what applies to Kildare and not the remaining roads. He stated he sees no public use for Kings Lane or Longford Road. The Planner explained that the Planning Commission and the POSC felt that the portion of Kildare that abuts Lots 24 and 25 is more unusable than Kings Lane because of the topography. He further explained that Kings Lane is relatively flat and could be used for public access to the lake. Steven Behnke, Fineline Design, stated that the approximate ordinary high water level line shown is not consistent with what their surveyors found on the site. He stated that the 929 contour actually comes down into the intersection of Kings Lane and Kildare Road. He then referred to the holding pond construction which will extend into the Kildare Road right-of-way abutting Lots 24 and 25. This is why they are requesting the vacation of this portion of Kildare Road. He stated they have a plan that has been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The Mayor opened the public heating. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public heating. The Council discussed the fact that if certain areas were vacated it could cause some lots to become land locked. Councilmember Hanus pointed out that this whole issue of vacation of these right-of-ways came about because of docks. We have a situation here where we've got a certain amount of City land that we can count into the Dock Program. The applicants have submitted an application for a multiple dock in the area and have been granted that. He stated that we have an opportunity here to make a decision. We can either keep it in the public program and license the docks that are there. But in order to do that, there are more docks there than what the public land provides in linear feet to produce the BSU's (boat storage units) in the area. The applicant stated he figures there is approximately 450 feet of lakeshore. Councilmember Hanus stated that is counting the private land and the City cannot count that. The applicant stated he is looking at this in two ways. If it remains Commons Dock, there is 450 feet which allows 9 docks. If it's private, there is 450 feet and its 9 docks. Councilmember Hanus stated the City cannot count all that private shoreline that cuts across the development, because not all of that shoreline is public land. The applicant argued that the City can count noncontiguous lakeshore and the developer can only count contiguous lakeshore. The applicant feels that either way they will be allowed 9 docks. The developer feels that if this land is keep in the dock program, there will be a net gain of 1 dock to the program. Councilmember Hanus did not agree with this. Councilmember Hanus stated that if Longford is vacated, we loose a little City shoreline, but we don't have to draw BSU's from other portions of the City dock program. Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels there would not be 7 individual docks going out because they have a homeowners association situation here and the LMCD will push for a multiple dock, like the applicant is proposing now. Mr. Behnke stated that the Homeowners Association documents are filed and they do represent a multiple dock. * If Longford were vacated, it would not be assigned to the individual lots adjacent. It would be Association owned MOUND CIT~ COUNCI~ MIN~$. NOVEMBER 10, Councilmember Hanus asked Councilmember Weycker why the POSC wanted to retain Kings Lane. Councilmember Weycker stated that it is public access to the lake. She felt the dockage was not an issue at the POSC. The issue was lake access. She did not feel it is in the public interest to vacate Kings Lane or Longford Road. Councilmember Hanus asked about how the POSC felt about just vacating a portion of Kildare abutting Lots 24 and 25. Councilmember Weycker stated that was not proposed at the Park Commission. She would like to see this go back to the POSC for this. Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RF~OLUTION g98-125 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVFJ~ PLATTED CITY RIGHT OF WAY KNOW AS KILDARE ROAD ADJACENT TO LOTS 24 & 25, BLOCK 11, SETON, P & Z CASE//98- 55 Councilmember Weycker stated that the second Whereas should read as follows: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any partel thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and, Councilmember Weycker asked that the fourth Whereas read as follows: WHEREAS, the vacation request was reviewed by the City staff, Park Commission, Docks & Commons Commission, and the applicable utility companies, amt · ' ' ' ' In addition, it appears to be in the public's interest to vacate this right-of-way as it does not have a public use; and, She asked for the deletion because the Park Commission did object to the vacation. Councilmember Hanus commented that relative to the docks that has not been addressed is that what this is allowing is, even though it is a pretty enclosed situation here, the City is allowing homeowners who own private lakeshore to use City Commons Docks. There is a provision in section 320 that allows that, but they would be last on the priority list. He asked if this is precedent setting. Councilmember Weycker asked the developer if what Councilmember Hanus said is accurate, because she thought there was a private dock as well as a multiple dock and the private dock came off their lakeshore lot. Mr. Stokes stated that was correct. The private lots will put in their own docks. There are two lots that qualify as private lakeshore and will not be using the multiple dock. There will be 6 slips on the multiple MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER I0, 1998 dock. The Council discussed adding language to the resolution to cover retaining utility easements in the vacated land. Under the Now, Therefore be it Resolved add the following: The City of Mound reserves an easement for utility and drainage purposes over, under and across that part of the above described vacated Kildare Road. Mr. Behnke then asked for clarification of a statement in the Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1998, that read as follows: "Mueller clarified the status of the property that it would require a public lands permit to do the grading (in the intersection of Kings Lane and the vacated portion of Kildare Road) and the ownership would remain the City's." Mr. Behnke stated the Building Official, Jon Sutherland, stated this would be handled as an amendment to their grading permit not a public lands permit. Mr. Behnke stated he thought this would ail be taken care of here or as an amendment to the grading permit. He did not want to have to apply for a Public I_ands Permit. The Council asked which Commission would see this if it were a Public Lands Permit Application to grade at the intersection of Kings Lane and Kildare. The Planner stated it would go to the Park and Open Space Commission for review and recommendation. The Council discussed the fact that if the applicant wanted this, he should have applied for a public lands permit at the same time he applied for the vacation. The Council did not feel they should grant this before it goes through normal channels. The Planner stated he was not aware of the conversation Mr. Behnke had with Mr. Sutherland about the grading issue being handled as an amendment to his grading permit. The Planner further stated that at the last Planning Commission Meeting they were trying figure out how this ponding facility would work and how it could be moved onto the vacated portion of Kildare Road. At that time it was thought there was some area that they would have to blend out into the Kings Lane intersection, which will not be vacated. It was then decided, the developer would need to get a Public I_ands Permit. The Council was not comfortable granting a Public I_ands Permit, at this time, because it could set a precedent that they did not want to do by skipping the POSC review and recommendation. The Council also wanted to have the City Engineer review design of the ponding facility. The City Attorney stated that the Council could approve this subject to the POSC review and recommendation. The Mayor stated he is opposed to this. Councilmember Hanus reminded the Council that a vote on the Public Lands Permit requires a 4/5 vote' Of the Council. The vote on the vacation Resolution//98-125 was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. The City Attorney advised that if the Council would like to deal with the Public Lands Permit tonight, the motion would be: "A motion to permit Land Alteration Permit under Section 320 of the City Code, subject to consideration and consent by the Park & Open Space Commission at its next meeting." ' 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Land Alteration Permit under Section 320 of the City Code, subject to consideration and consent by the Park & Open Space Commi~ion at its next meeting and approval of the ponding design by the City Engineer. The vote was 4 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carried. 7 11/12/98 THU i4:'44 F.~ 6128920241 KINKO$ BURNSVILLE · ._Rev. 4/97 CITY OF MOUND · P LI LA PERMIT APPLICATIO CITY OF MOUND, $341 Mav~ood Road, Mound, ' Phon~: 472-0600, F~t: 4724620 DISTRIBUTION: __..._BUILDING OFFICIAL _ PARKS DIRECTOR _ DNR MCWD _ PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED DOCK Mt/EYING DAT~ CITY COUNCIL DATE CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LA.ND I'gRMIT...,,, co,,=uc,i~ NO'm: NO P~IIT B~ ~ ~R CO~U~ON OF BOAT HOUri OR ~R B~D~GS ON P~C ~ (Ci~ Code ~c~on ~, ~. I). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PKRMIT. ~ ano. r~s m ,~ e~mg ~:m~ (cb Code 320, Sub~. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE. ~o ,tm, ,~ ~ e=ro~,-,~_.~t = r,~' ium "as ~' common (Civy Code Section ~20, Subd. 3). ~. ~). ~ nH NONCO~O~G ~. h ~ ~e ~tent of ~e CI~ m b~ ~ ~ ~ h~ ~~e ~ m~m m~ those ~ur~ ~i at some ~e ~ ~ ~e have ~ be ~ ~ ~e ~c ~. ~ ~ u~ l~m~ for a ]~ted ~e and ~ non-~a~bb. S~y co~~ m~ m~ ~e ~ ~!~ C~e ~ ~ ~r~ ~ f~ ~w c~etlon, or n new p~lt b aphid for due M c~e h ~ ~ boi~. Applicant Abubzin9 Legal Description Name Address Phone (home) Address Owns r Subd. Public Name ruy Dock Site Contractor Name Address (work) BlocR~ Phone Shoreline Type VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PRO/ECT (m'CLUDU~O U,mO~. ar IViATt~m. ALS):~ D~e '~lO01 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 12, 1998 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR KINGS LANE Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon was not present, but Fackler had information regarding the request for vacation of roads. This request entails a portion of Kings Lane. City Engineers want an approval of public lands permit to regrade. This was approved by the Council, subject to approval by the City Engineer, and tthe POSC. Fackler recommended adding amendments to include erosion control measures and re-seeding the area. Brown and Weycker explained the location of the regrade, and that the changes to public lands will be very slight. Cooper wondered why this was under the jurisdiction of Parks, and Fackler explained that this area is open space, not docking, which is why it falls under Parks to approve. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker, to approve a Public Lands Permit for grading on unimproved Kings Lane, as recommended, with the following stipulations: Reseed the area after the regrade. Erosion control and/or stabilization measures be take~ Motion carried unanimously. 4 I, ~ II ME M O R ,4 ND UM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MFRA NO.: Mound Park and Open Space Commission John Cameron, City Engineer November 13, 1998 City of Mound Seton Bluff Request for Public Lands Permit 11542 Seton Bluff Development requested and received approval to vacate the remaining, unused right-of- way (ROW) for Kildare Road from the new cul-de-sac to the easterly ROW of King's Lane. They have now redesigned the stormwater detention pond using a portion of the vacated Kildare Lane ROW. Attached is a copy of the revised pond design and the original design as approved with the final plat. The revised design shifts the pond southerly and eliminates the two-tiered retaining wall originally shown along the northeasterly side. The redesign; however still requires a single retaining wall, one to four feet in height along the westerly side of the proposed pond. This plan also requires some minor grading within the King Lane's ROW, which requires a permit to work in public lands. The riprap at the end of the pond outlet pipe is also located within the King's Lane ROW, which was granted approval with the final plat and the original pond design. The revised pond design is actually more functional than the original since it separates the inlet and outlet structures. We are recommending approval of the redesign as submitted. e:~nain:\l 1542\parkl 1-12 L i No. 5138 I/,'l C ,I r f ~ SETON BLUFF REVISED POND DP:TAIL qqt~ .... ~ ! ..... . -. .. ',", ~ , , , ' x'?7, r ( ~ ~~. / ? ~ I T ~ ~ ,"~ '% " I ~ ~ ,~ , , , ~."-v ..,. .... ,/ ~ ~ "~ I ~ ,. ~... , ' · ~ I I " I '" ~ J ' ~1 II I .2, :'" " I ! : I ~ '- :~;.. · - ..-Tv..~. ~& ~,~"/ - . .. .... ~:: , ~:"" ,:~'~ .~'J-~ ' ~" ~ ~-.: · .:.~.:... ,,,, ..... . · ..,,..~_. ~::- ~ . ~. ~,' . ~.~-~-'~ .. · . '"'"--- - .... " ' ' - -''-. ....... · ; "~.:'-:~::z,,: ,..~ ........ .. ,.. .~,~',,,~ .... . ~:S~, · . ~ ~,-~ ~.~.. ,.,.. Bills November 24, 1998 Batch 8099 158,283.35 TOTAL BILLS 158,283.35 0 ~U t Z C~ I I I I Z Z Z 0 0 0 o I o CD %. m UJ :It ._1 ~t mi Z 0 Z UJ u WL i : I ~ I I ' I :: I ~ I I · . g .... d g ' g ' :: 4 4 ' ....... ·.~ ~ Z ,,,~ I.i. 0 .I- ] PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structure Variance Request APPLICANT: Anne and Bob Hunt - Owners - 5319 Bartlett Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 97-31 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5q LOCATION: 5319 Bartlett Blvd. EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: As you will remember, the Commission in July of 1997 reviewed this case. The case involved variances to a number of structural repairs to a nonconforming lakeside accessory structure. The previous planning report and Commission meeting minutes are provided for your review. At that meeting, the case was tabled until an accurate survey was submitted by the applicant. Shortly thereafter, sent a letter dated July 16, 1997, asking to have the variance application revoked. In addition, a second letter asked for permit approval for work completed to date on the beach house. COMMENTS: This is a difficult case due to the number of improvements that have been completed of are in a state of completion. When this case was discussed at the Planning Commission last year the question of structural improvements and improvements to increase livability was discussed at length. The code stipulates that improvements which are structural in nature are not allowed 'to nonconforming structures. Structural work includes repair or replacement of roof sheeting and joices, replacement of stud walls, and repair or replacement to foundations. Livability items are those that do not add significant structural stability and are intended to be more aesthetic in nature. These would include insulation, carpeting, wall coverings (although they may provide some structural support), siding, and soffits. Staff's recommendation is intended to recognize that the beach house is a nonconforming structure and that it will eventually need to be removed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as stated above. Staff would also recommend the following actions be included as a part of the denial, 1) The owner be allowed to finish the walls with sheet rock or similar material; 2) The roofjoices that were installed be allowed to remain; 3) The wiring be allowed to remain; - 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #97-31 - Hunt Variance Request November 9,1998 4) The porch be removed and the exterior of that portion of the boathouse be resided to match the existing siding; 5) The lower deck connecting the beach house be removed up to the stairway leading to the dock. 6) No gas lines shall be extended to the beach house; 7) The owner secure all required permits and approvals necessary for construction previously completed or to be completed as a part of finishing the interior. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 October 28, 1998 Mr. Jon Suthefland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RECEIVED 0 C T 2 8 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Dear Mr. Sutherland: We would like to reinstate our variance application. We have had a survey completed of the property per the planning commission's request. The repairs that were done to our beach house were designed to not alter the appearance or footprint of the building. We request a permit for the completed work. This includes the roof, the siding, the new deck planking and replacement of the existing windows. We also request a permit to complete the installation of insulation, sheetrock and replacement of the wiring that has been removed per Mr. Sutherland's request. Regarding the deck not attached to the beach house. It was replaced in 1989 by a contractor. It was repaired as a result of ice damage. Since the contractor did the entire job, my husband assumed a permit was obtained if necessary. New footings were not installed and the size of the deck footprint was not changed. We request a variance for this deck also. In exchange for these permits, we would agree to not use the building for a permanent home office or dwelling. We will not add plumbing or hook up the water. We will remove the gas tank on the side of the beach house and we will remove the pumping station for lake water sprinkling. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Enclosure (1) afh ,, / / / / / / / / ,, ,, / / / / / / / / / ~ / ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ¥- / / / / / / EXISTING HARDCOVER Are a Tota Is House and Garage 2081 Deck with porch under 266 Boat house 212 80 ~orch 555 Concrete (3) 1193 Decks (4) 1585 Landscape (3) 68 Sandbox ~,etaining walls (2) 12 Bituminous paving 4009 TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 10061 PROPOSED HARDCOVER CHANGES Items proposed to be removed Area 0 Total Items proposed to be removed 0 items proposed to be added 0 Total Items propo_~ed to be edded 0 TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER CHANGES 0 TOTAL HARDCOVER AFTER PROPOSAL 10061" LOT AREA 25091 3ERCENT OF LOT THAT MAY BE HARD 30% SQ. FT. OF ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER 7527 ~,REA OF H.C. UNDER + OR OVER - ORD. -2534 PERCENT OF ZONE HARD AFTER PROPOSAL 40% CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 30, 1998 Anne and Robert Hunt 5319 Bartlett Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: After the fact Building Permit/Variance request case//97-31 Dear Ms. Hunt: This letter is a follow up of my previous letter dated 8-27-97 and relates to your request for an after the fact building permit. I apologize for the delay in my response to your request. I was and I still am hoping that you would reconsider the voluntary termination of your variance request. We would, of course, prefer that you complete the process. You would then have the opportunity to give your input and discuss your case directly with the City Council. I received a phone call from your attorney inquiring about what was position of the City. We discussed your nonconforming issues and a couple of similar situations the City has had in the past. We also discussed that the City staff and Planning Commission are advisory to the City Council and ultimately it is the council who makes the final determination with any variance case. The City Council has not had the opportunity to review your case to date due to your withdrawal, I emphasized that our best opportunity for a possible resolution and/or compromise is to go through the variance process and let the council take a good look at the case. Your after the fact permit application is complicated because of the structural nature of the work. Structural work is generally not permitted on nonconforming structures. The structural work you have completed is intertwined with what is normally permitted maintenance. For example you have installed and are applying for a permit for new roof shingles (a maintenance item that I could normally issue a permit for), however you have also completed structural repair to the roof rafters and decking for which I cannot issue a permit without prior council approval. Other complicating items you are printed on recycled paper requesting permits for are windows and the sliding patio door (normally permitted maintenance), however both are also tied to the new structural repairs you have made to the walls with new wood framing (studs, plates, and headers), Relating to the joists and decking, as stated in the planner's report, the repairs exceed the minimum maintenance that would be allowed. Please contact me within 10 days of receipt of this letter to let me know how you intend to proceed and if you are willing to reinitiate your variance request. In the event there are any questions or you are not willing to proceed with the variance procedure, I am providing our City Attorney with a copy of this letter and the background material. If you wish to have your attorney call and discuss the matter further with me or our attorney, you are welcome to do so. I look forward to your response. If you have any questions give me a call @ 472-0600, (8:00 am to 10:00 am is the best time to call). Building Official JS:kl cc: Loren Gordon, City Planner John Dean, City Attorney File CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 27, 1997 Anne and Robert Hunt 5319 Bartlett Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Variance request case #97-31 Dear Ms. Hunt: I am in receipt of your letter and confirm your request to revoke your application for a variance. I will follow up with a response to your request for a building permit, please be advised that a stop work order is still in effect on the beach house and no further work is allowed without the required permits being obtained. I have included a handout that states what type of Work is exempted from building permits. If you have any questions give me a call @ 472-0600, (8:00 am to 10:00 am is the best time to call). Building Official JS:kl Enclosure ' - cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner John Dean, City Attorney File printed on recycle~ paper City of Mound 534t Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 BUILDING PERMIT EXEM IONS Per Uniform Building Code Section 106.1: No building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the Building Official. Exempted Work. Building permits are not required for the following: UBC sec. 106.2 1. One story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet. All accessory_ buildings must meet setback requirements and impervious surfaces: max 30 %, or 40 % for lots of record with an approved _erading plan. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5'9" high, that when installed do not affect the required exiting system. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IiI-A liquids. Detached platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30" above grade and not over any basement or story below. All decks/platforms must be setback requirements. 5. Painting, papering and similar finish work. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3, and Group M Occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches. 7. Agricultural buildings. Unless other wise exempted, separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits will be required for the above exempted items. " Exemption from the permit requirements of the Uniform Building Code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of the code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Mr. Jon Sutherland Inspector Planning Department City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road ~.~.~.. Mound, MN 55364 July 16, 1997 Dear Jon: Please grant me the permits for the work we have completed on our beach house. According to the June 19, 1997 inspection notice that would include permits for. the new mol the new windows and repair to the studs, siding, soffits and fac, ia, sliding door, joists on the north side and decking and guardrails along all sides. I understand since the work has already been completed that the permit fees will be double. Please let me know how much we owe so that we can pay for them promptly. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Anne Hunt 5319 Bartlett Boulevard Mound, MN "lSIf' Anne and Robert Hunt 5319 Bartlett Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 July 16, 1997 Dear Planning Commission, Jon Sutherland and Loren Gordon: Please revoke my application for a variance. The ease number is 97-31. Anne Hunt MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1997 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller and Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and excused: Becky Glister and Gerald Reifsclmeider. Also present: Building Official Jori Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon and Secretary Linda Strong. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 23, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. //97-31: VARIANCE TO ALLOW AFTER THE FACT IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BEACH HOUSE AND ALSO TO ALLOW SEWER/WATER HOOK uP. LOT 28, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 170, PID 24-117-24 24 0025. Loren Gordon reviewed the case. BACKGROUND: The applicants have submitted a variance request for improvements to an existing beach house. The variance application proposes water and sewer service connections, replacement of the porch, and miscellaneous structural repairs. It should be noted the variance request was prompted by a citizen complaint regarding construction activity occurring in the beach house. Beach houses are considered nonconforming structures and improvements that will extend their li:': are not permitted. The Code does not provide the opportunity to extend their life through structural alterations. The intent is to remove these structures from the community when they begin to fall into a state of disrepair. This case has a history of events which merit discussion. Additionally, the current owners have lived at the residence since 1989 and have taken out permits for improvements associated with the house prior to the work on the beach house. This is important to note in demonstrating a knowledge of the permitting process. Work to the beach house started in May of 1996. The applicant and City Staff met on May 1, 1996 to discuss replacement of the retaining wall protecting the beach housl~. After reviewing the request, a permit was issued for a new concrete brick retaining wall. At that time, City Staff inventoried the condition of the beach house commenting on the poor condition of the electrical wiring and ordered the wiring to be replaced or removed immediately. The applicant stated there were no plans regarding improvements to the beach house. "'A citizen complaint initiated the 2nd visit to the property June 19, 1997. As noted in the · 'inspection report, a number of illegal improvements had occurred to the beach house since the last visit in May of 1996. The construction activity noted by the inspector is listed in the inspection notice report. Structural improvements to me beach house include a new roof, siding, and structural support to the rafters and wails. Windows, sill plates and headers were incorporated in the wall facing the lake. Cosmetic improvements to the interior include insulation, electrical wiring, and phone wiring. The stairway and landing has also undergone improvements without permit approval. It appears that decking, joists and footings were replaced. Because the joists and footings were replaced, the repairs exceed minimum maintenance which would be allowed. The landing is considered nonconforming due to its location within the setback area. Replacement of decking would be allowed with a permit, but improvements to the structural elements of the landing would not be permitted. The applicant has also prepared an explanation of the current work to date. This is included in your case material. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a f'mding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff feels there are no circumstances regarding the property which create a hardship. It is also difficult to determine the applicant has inherited a practical difficulty which would merit the granting of a variance. The Code is clear in prohibiting beach houses along the lake shore. A 50' setback must be maintained from the lake for all structures with the exception of stairways, lifts, landings that are under 32 square feet, and water-oriented accessory structures. Given the circumstances of the case, there are some issues that should be kept in mind when rendering a decision. First, the work was done illegally without any type of permit or approval from the City. Any construction activity of this type requires a permit. The applicant demonstrates previous experience with the City's permitting system for other home improvement projects. As noted in the May 1996 inspection notice report, the owner indicated no work was proposed to the beach house. Second, it is difficult to overlook the improvements made to date. There are a number of smaller projects that have a large impact on the liveability of the beach house when looked at comprehensively. Those structural improvements to the beach house, retaining wall, and landing will extend their life and use for many decades to come. Third, the proposal to extend water and sewer service to the beach house will potentially alter the intended use of the structure. Beach houses were originally intended to be used as support to water- oriented activities for storage and shelter related functions. Incorporating water and sewer facilities could allow the beach house to operate more intensively than originally designed or allowed. Bath and shower facilities could conceivably encourage longer term living arrangements. Furthermore, the petitioner appears to be setting the stage for a home office arrangement in the lower half of the beach house with phone lines, office equipment and supplies. This would be considered a home occupation and the operations of such would be Minutes- Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 strictly limited to the principal structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as stated above. Staff would also recommend the following actions be included as a part of the denial: 1) The owner be allowed to finish the walls with sheet rock or similar material; 2) There will be no opportunity for structural improvements to the porch inferring its condition will continue to deteriorate and removal will be necessary at some point; 3) No gas lines shall be extended to the beach house; 4) The owner secure all required permits and approvals necessary for construction previously completed or to be completed as a part of finishing the interior of the beach house. Chair Michael asked if the staff had received the information the applicant, Ann Hunt, has distributed. The staff had not, they were given a copy. Chair Michael asked the Commission for comments. Weiland wondered if the sheet rock extended the life of the structure. Sutherland stated all of the improvements, as they add up, do extend the life and improve the structure's ability to be used, possibly to intensify its use. Rafters could be installed, by permit, without removing the old ones. The issue is debatable, the code allows up to 50 % of the value, to be repaired. The building was in a marginal situation prior to improvements. Items have be repaired; additional studs and rafters, headers, door trimmers, windows, new siding, and roof. These all extend the life of the building, and is not in compliance with the ordinance. Weiland stated the code is clear in not allowing beach houses along the lakeshore unless the setback is 50 feet. He felt they know they were to have permits, that the applicant did not obtain permits. Weiland was opposed to the entire situation. He wanted them to remove all of the work done illegally. He stated that from reading Ms. Hunt's information she had passed out, the building appeared to be at condemnation. Voss stated he empathized for the applicant not understanding the seriousness of the situation with the DNR, Shoreland Management Ordinance, the City of Mound and the City Council. He is opposed to boat houses and allowing them to remain on the shoreline. He stated there was no way he could approve the request. He referred to an electrical inspection being needed. Sutherland stated staff did not insinuate that the life of the building would be extended. He did discuss with Ms. Hunt the boat house and that it was nonconforming to setbacks and that permits would be needed to do any repairs. Ms. Hunt stated the electrical was disconnected immediately. Also, there was a dangerous space between the retaining wall the buildings they put a deck there. She understood that these were structural repairs and no permit would be needed. 115 Minutes- Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 Chair Michael asked Ms. Hunt to hold her comments until all of the Commissioners had spoken. Mueller referred to the 5-1-96 inspection notice regarding a guardrail which implies a deck extension of the walkway from the new retaining wall to existing boat house, but no work on the boat house. Sutherland stated the need to get to the boat house, and there was no permit for a walkway. He continued stating the retaining wall had fallen down, when it had collapsed, it was appropriate to issue a permit for the retaining wall repairs. He felt he had informed Ms. Hunt the need to have a landing to get to the boat house. He had assumed a three foot wide walkway to tie into the existing deck situation would be constructed. He stated a permit could be issued to get walkway to reach the boat house and he understood her to have the knowledge regarding permits at that time. Mueller asked about the electrical work on the boat house. Sutherland stated he observed the electric coming out of the ground. He asked her if it was live and that it was potentially dangerous. He stated it must be removed and abandoned immediately. Ms. Hunt signed the inspection notice. Mueller wanted to clarify the sequence. Sutherland stated the issue regarding the guardrail was intended not be installed on a new deck to the boat house. He indicated to the applicant that a guardrail could go up behind the retaining wall to avoid falling into the cavity between the boat house and the retaining wall. Burma stated this looked like more than 50 % repair and improvement had been completed, and how long could these small repairs be accumulated? Sutherland quoted from Code 350:420. Subd. 1, which states, "Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date." He continued with Subd. 2, "Nothing in this chapter shall prevent restoring of a structure to safe condition when said structure id declared unsafe by the City, providing further that the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of such structure." Hanus commented on the difference from incidental work opposed to major work, such as roofing. Were building permits issued on properties that were nonconforming? Sutherland replied they were if there was no structural change, i.e. retool. Burma stated these incidental repairs also extend the life of the building. Hanus referred to Resolution//79-99 in the documentation provided, he wondered what the resolution related to. Loren Gordon clarified two things. Electrical work would not extend the life of a structure, it 116 Minutes- Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 could, however, extend the usefulness of the structure. This is not related to the exterior of the building and how the weather could deteriorate it. Burma began listing all of the repairs done. Clapsaddle stated the structure is not classified as illegal, it is a nonconforming structure that may have illegal improvements. Resolution //79-99 was located and it did not relate to the boat house. It pertained to a subdivision of one lot into two lots, one which is the Hunt property. Weiland referenced the tank along side of the beach house. The applicant's neighbor stated it had been used for gas for the boats, but was not used any more. Weiland then referenced the pipe going into the lake. The applicant stated that at one time, prior to their ownership, the water and sewer drained into the lake, but did not any more. Questions to Applicant: Mueller stated the handout information she prepared was well done. He asked her the intended use of the beach house. The applicant stated her husband wanted to use it for a quiet area, it would not be used for commercial enterprise. She commented that of the existing beach houses along the shore, theirs is the least improved and there are several other beach houses that look much better. Mueller stated that several of the beach houses have been removed from the lake shore since the Shoreland Management Ordinance, they have not been improved. The applicant stated she did not do these things intentionally illegal, she had an ignorant carpenter. Hanus asked the staff to clarify what was done and what does staff recommend. Gordon stated the intent is to not increase the character of the beach house, not to make improvement to increase the use such as water and sewer, gas line and phone line. This could become a secondary structure to the primary structure on the property. Structurally, sheetrock could extend the life, which could possibly extend the use. '- Gordon stated the decking is cosmetic, maintenance. Mueller stated no improvement should be done to the structure on the lakeside, major structural. Weiland asked if the structure should be removed? Gordon stated if it is a hazard to the health and safety of the residents, it should be evaluated by staff. He had not done a thorough analysis 117 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 at the time. Hanus stated the beach house will probably remain in some form. He referenced the deck around the beach house. If the lower deck was removed completely, and there was only grass and no hardcover, at what point would you not be allowing the use of the structure because of the access? Gordon stated a deck could be constructed on grade. Hanus was concerned with it being too close to the water and not be conforming to setbacks. Gordon stated his recommendations at this time hit the bullets of the issue. The structure is still not conforming. There was discussion regarding the inspection notices of 5-1-96 and 6-19-97 and the items that were revealed in the inspection without a permit being issued. There was no permit issued to replace the roof. A variance would not be needed to reroof. The issue of extending the life of a structure that is nonconforming was discussed. Mueller referred to the rafters. Sutherland stated the existing framed roof was bouncy and the sheeting had deteriorated. The owner installed new rafters between the existing rafters which stiffened up the roof. Sutherland stated he would reinspect all of the improvements, evaluate the cost and value and send the information to the planner. Everything that was reconstructed will need an after the fact permit, including roof, headers, sheetrock, facia, soffit, electrical, decking, guardrail, joists, rafters, etc. The extended life of the structure, through the several improvements, was discussed. The Planner stated it probably extended the life of the structure for another 10 years, maybe longer. It was discussed as to how long the structure would have lasted without the improvements. It was hard to decide. If small repairs were to be done over a period of time, who knows. Items such as joists would need a variance from the City Council because the building is nonconforming. The way it was done, exceeds the ordinance. Mueller stated the lakeside porch should be torn down. Sutherland stated it is in a state of disrepair, it should either be repaired or demolished. Mueller stated it would need footings and that cannot be done. Weiland thought that more than 50 % of the value had been replaced, and what was indicated by the permit requests. Weiland implied the applicants had done the repair/remodel work without obtaining permits. The Planner agreed. Weiland wanted the applicant to stop construction. The Planner stated it is within the power of the Commission. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the variance 118 ! 1, Minutes - Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 request and require applicant to return the building back to its original state. There was discussion regarding directing the applicant to remove the construction. Then they suggested to move forward, permit the already finished work, and allow no more work to be done. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend allowing the work that is completed to remain, the owner will pay a double fee for the appropriate permits, and there shall be no more work done to the nonconforming beach house. Burma suggested to word it, "Recommend deny with four points other than #1, owner not be allowed to finish the walls with sheet rock or similar material, double the fee, obtain all permits on previous work done." Michael and Clapsaddle accepted the wording. Discussion Mueller stated there was no survey at all that shows any structures or setbacks. He suggested the applicant have an accurate survey done and given the Planning Department. He continued to comment that if the Commission grants the property owner approval of the work done without a permit, it should show up on a survey. He continued stating that no accurate measurements were shown to any lot line from any structure. Hanus agreed that a survey is warranted. A survey should be obtained by the home owner and the item should return to the Planning Commission, this item should be tabled until then. Michael withdrew his motion. He wanted to table the item until a survey is received. Clapsaddle asked if tabling the motion would avoid the issue of construction without permits. Mueller clarified not, repairs have been done without permits, it would be dealt with. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to table Case g97-31, 5319 Bartlett Blvd., variance request to approve repairs done to a nonconforming lakeside structure without first acquiring permits, until a current Certificate of Survey, from a certified land surveyor can be received by the Planning Commission. The motion carried 5-2, Voss and Weiland voting nay. It was clarified what was needed on the survey -- all existing structures and improvements, setbacks to all structures to the property lines and to include the gas tank. Ms. Hunt was informed that when a current and correct survey was received by the Planning Commission, the item could return to the Planning Commission on the second Monday of August. 119 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Jl-t [t"4H TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structure Variance Request APPLICANT: Anne and Bob Hunt - Owners - 5319 Bartlett Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 97-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97~5q LOCATION: 5319 Bartlett Blvd. EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants have submitted a variance request for improvements to an existing beach house. The variance application proposes water and sewer service connections, replacement of the porch, and miscellaneous structural repairs. It should be noted the variance request was prompted by a citizen complaint regarding construction activity occurring in the beach house. Beach houses are considered nonconforming structures and improvements that will extend their life are not permitted. The Code does not provide the opportunity to extend their life though structural alterations. The intent is to remove these stmctures from the community when they begin to fall into a state of disrepair. This case has a history of events which merit discussion. Additionally, the current owners have lived at the residence since 1989 and have taken out permits for improvements associated with the house prior to the work on the beach house. This is important to note in demonstrating a knowledge of the permitting process. Work to the beach house started in May of 1996. The applicant and City Staff met on May 1, 1996 to discuss replacement of the retaining wall protecting the beach house. After reviewing the request, a permit was issued for a new concrete brick retaining wall. At that time, City Staff inventoried the condition of the beach house commenting on the poor condition of the electrical wiring and ordered the wiring to be replaced or removed immediately. The applicant stated there were no plans regarding improvements to the beach house. A citizen complaint initiated the 2nd visit to the property June 19, 1997. As noted in the inspection report, a number of illegal improvements had occurred to the beach house since the last visit in May of 1996. The construction activity noted by the inspector is listed in the inspection notice report. Structural improvements to the beach house include a new roof, siding, and structural support to the 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 C rafters and walls. Windows, sill plates and headers were incorporated in the wall facing the lake. Cosmetic improvements to the interior include insulation, electrical wiring, and phone wiring. The stairway and landing has also undergone improvements without permit approval. It appears that decking, joists and footings were replaced. Because the joists and footings were replaced, the repairs exceed minimum maintenance which would be allowed. The landing is considered nonconforming due to its location within the setback area. Replacement of decking would be allowed with a permit, but improvements to the structural elements of the landing would not be permitted. The applicant has also prepared an explanation of the current work to date. This is included in your case material. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Ao Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the rcdnimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff feels there are no circumstances regarding the property which create a hardship. It is also difficuR to determine the applicant has inherited a practical difficulty which would merit the granting of a variance. The Code is clear in prohibiting beach houses along the lake shore. A 50' setback must be maintained from the lake for all structures with the exception of stairways, lifts, landings that are under 32 square feet, and water-oriented accessory structures. - - Given the circumstances of the case, there are some issues that should be kept in mind when rendering a decision. First, the work was done illegally without any type of permit or approval from the City. Any construction activity of this type requires a permit. The applicant demonstrates previous experience with the City's permitting system for other home improvement projects. As noted in the May 1996 inspection notice report, the owner indicated no work was proposed to the beach house. Second, it is difficult to overlook the improvements made to date.,There are a number of smaller projects that have a large impact on the liveability of the beach house when looked at comprehensively. Those stmcturai improvements to the beach house, retaining wall, and landing will "1530 extend their life and use for many decades to come. Third, the proposal to extend water and sewer service to the beach house will potentially alter the intended use of the structure. Beach houses were originally intended be used as support to water-oriented activities for storage and shelter related functions. Incorporating water and sewer facilities could allow the beach house to operate more intensively than originally designed or allowed. Bath and shower facilities could conceivably encourage longer term living arrangements. Furthermore, the petitioner appears to be setting the stage for a home office arrangement in the lower half of the beach house with phone lines, office equipment and supplies. This would be considered a home occupation and the operations of such would be strictly limited to the principal structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as stated above. Staff would also recormnend the following actions be included as a part of the denial, 1) The owner be allowed to finish the walls with sheet rock or similar material; 2) There will be no opportunity for structural improvements to the porch inferring its condition will continue to deteriorate and removal will be necessary at some point; 3) No gas lines shall be extended to the beach house; 4) The owner secure all required permits and approvals necessary for construction previously completed or to be completed as a part of finishing the interior of the beach house. C VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: (zg-oY~- q '~ City Planner ~ -OO-q? DNR t, City Engineer Other e, Public Works SUBJECT Address 5,~q PROPERTY Lot ~ ~ ~-~O~CO~ ~-~ Block LEGAL Subdivision DESC. PID# ~t..[_ | I ~ - c>%~ - ~c-/ _ C.DO ~ Plat# ZONING DISTRICT /R-¢ R-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ~ OWNER Address ,..%",~ Phone (H) Z~ ~o~ - ~ O ~ ~ (W) ~ ;~c~ - ,~ ~o 13 ~:~ (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 1/14/07) ~"~~~ Yari~c.e Application, P. 2 Case No. ~7- ~/ o SETBACKS: Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No .ff). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ((~S E W ) ~C) ft. l~ & ft. '-- ft. Side Yard: ( N S(2~>W ) ] O ft. ,:2 ~'t O ft. "- ft. Side Yard: ( N S E (~)) I O ft. Iit ,--/_ ft ..... ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. I ~ o ' ft. -'-- ft. Lakeside: ( N(2~)E W ) .60 ft. I ft. z[ g~ ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~ ff sq ft sq ft Hardcover: ' sc~ ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (~) other: specify describe: ~ x"' Jrt~ Ck~60 © ('"l ~ h ~ ,Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. ~'7- ~, t' Was ~e hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)2 Yes ~', No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (}~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ¢0, No (). If no, list some other properties whiCh are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or .upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Rev. 1/14/97) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~o~,,~, ;._3, ~ ~ sa. ~. x ~o% LOT AREA 2 3 ~ ~ ~1 Se. ~T. X 40% LOT AREA Se. ~. X ~5% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 3,¢ x 2'4.3 = ~,31.~ X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. lqo x o/0 x TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ~:~ X : X = X : TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I z..j;G ,._/~Z I (~~OVER (indicate difference) ' , I - o~/--/~', '7 ~ JJ 1, J J, C 0 0 (26) ~ / ~ 00 ~ >~- ~w~ ~ ~zZ~ ~JOdw - p~o~5 ~ mOOz=_ .~00 - ~=~ ~ooo~ OOOOOO 0 ~OO~OO 8 c BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 Business Name/Tennant The applicant is: ~V~owner ~contractor ~tenant LEGAL Lot c~ ~ DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~ 0WN . Phone(H) H~ ~H CONTRACTOR Company Name Contact Person Phone (Hi (~) ~-~ ~ - ~~ (~) ARCHITECT Name &IOR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (~) CHANGE OF FRO~: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: J~L_i~l~_O__O.. J2~J.._~-~Cl ~.O~"~ VALUATION OF WORK VALUE APPROVED BY INSPECTOR SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHCRiZEO IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK iS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK ~$ CSMMENCEg ~'tME L~MITS CN BUIL~ING COMPL=-TION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS = ~ mc =A, :m.~n= ~ ANY ~UILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON DBTAININC THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE tS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE ~.iTY C;UNC[L MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST DF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OOUNO:', THAT C;RC,JMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE RE~UESTE~ NDT LESS THAN THIRTY ~30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTiPY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BETRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOV~RNING THIS TYPE ,~F WORK WILL BE CDMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROV!S~ONS DF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: O CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG S~ZE IBC FT) # STORIES FIRE SPR NKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER # UN~TS YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED BY ,' DATE: PLANS CHECKED BY: : APPROVED BY / DATE: I ASSESSING MET COUNCIL/SAC BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 SITE Subject Address Business Name/Tennant The applicant is: ~wner ~contractor ~tenant LEGAL Lot ~ ~ DESCRIPTION Subdivision OWNER Name ~ Address ~ Phone{H) N~ -- ~N {W) H~a '~ ~ O ~ (M) CONTRACTOR Company Name ~O~' S~L~~q5~~g~J~ense ~ Phone(H) ~ J -~ ~ O O (W) ~ ~ I -- ~ ~ O (~ (M) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: ~'f'h~>'~J o~ h~J(~... ~rmr~z(~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~U5~ ~ VALUATION ~ ..... J VALUE APPROVED J OFWORK ~ 61H I 0 . O O BY INSPECTOR SEPARATE ~ERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, H~TING, VENTI~TING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK O~ CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIM~ AFTER WORK COMMENCED. TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COM~LEION. ALL WORK TO 8E PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING P~RMIT OBTAINED FOR N~ CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS Jg [H~ :~RJO~5 gF ANY ~UlLDINU OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLIED WITHIN ONE JlJ Y~ FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCe. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPL~ION. A VlO~TION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMI~EE, ESTABLISHING TO THE R~SONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TNAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMI~EE PR~ENTED COMPL~ION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE ~E~MIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF ~WS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WH~HER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANC EL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL ~W REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD B COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG SIZE (SQ FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER # UNITS YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS i - RECEIVED BY / DATE: 'PLANS CHECKED' BY: : : ' ':: APPROVED BY / DATE: ASSESSING MET COUNCIL/SAC AP---PLICATIONt ' "{'' BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 SITE Subject Address 8us}ness Name/Tennant The applicant is: ~owner ~contractor tenant LEGAL L DESCRIPTION Subdivision ' ~t~. Address ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~L~ Phone(H) W~-~ O~ (W) ~ ~ ~ O ~ (M) CONTRACTOR Company Name Contact Person ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: ( '"" VALUATION I OF WORK c)oo IVALUE APPROVED BY INSPECTOR SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TiME AFTER WORK ~S COMMENCED· TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS 10 i mc =xi :mi(JR5 G~- ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE {1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL SE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WiLL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION· PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG SIZE (SO FT) ,t' STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER ~ UNITS YES / NO $ PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED BY / DATE: PLANS CHECKED BY: ". · ..: APPROVED BY ! DATE: J ASSESSING · : · MET COUNCIL/SAC The Beach House Project I would like to provide you with a brief chronology of the repairs made to the beach house at 5319 Bartlett Boulevard. I'm hoping that you will see that I had no intention of violating local building codes. I was simply trying to maintain the condition of the beach house to prevent further deterioration. I thought that this maintenance was allowed without a building permit. I now know that permits should have been applied for to have some of this work done. The picture below was taken before any repairs were done. The beach house was protected by a concrete retaining wall that was in need of repair. This wall collapsed in the summer of 1995 due to its deteriorating condition and a very heavy rainfall. I received several bids to have this wall removed and replaced. All the contractors said it would be cost-prohibitive and dangerous to remove the existing wall without removing the screen porch. This was a 6' X 20' addition facing the main house. It also contained the electrical box for the beach house. I tore down the screen porch in the spring of 1996. The new retaining wall was installed in May, 1996. I did receive a permit for this work. I discussed options for covering up the gap between the beach house and the new retaining wall with the building inspector. I was told to remove the electrical box as it was now on the outside of the beach house, not in the screen porch. I did that. The roofline where the screen porch had been removed needed to be repaired. The joists had simply been cut off.to remove the porch. I decided to replace the shingles on the roof at the same time. It was impossible to match the many layers of shingles. I found the plywood in bad shape on the East and South sides of the roof due to carpenter ants. I decided to replace all the plywood. I hired someone to shingle it with the same color shingles as those that had been removed. I did not want to replace the screen porch. It was too expensive and impractical. A walkway was dangerous. I had a baby girl under 1-year old and a 2-year old boy at the time. I decided to put in a deck to cover the gap. I also decided to replace the railing on the entire deck of the beach house at the same time because the kids could fall through it. The deck planking was in good shape. It was 1" cedar decking. I honestly don't know why I considered replacing it, but I believe it was again a safety concern. I also needed it to match up with the new deck that was being installed over the retaining wall. This initiated another series of projects. I removed the decking, but couldn't get the nails out of the joists on the South side. I spent a considerable amount of time working on this. I fell through the roof of the screen porch while removing the nails. I decided to replace the joists because it was much faster and safer than what I had been doing. I also had to replace the plywood on this roof due to carpenter ants. I left the joists that were on the West side of the beach house. In retrospect, I probably would have inquired about the need for a building permit ifI had imagined the expanding project scope of this deck. It reminded me of the movie, The Money Pit. The beach house was covered with gray-stained cedar to match the main house. The wall of the beach house where the porch had been had white siding from the original walls. I tried to order siding to match. The siding was very expensive and needed to be special-ordered. I was sure that ants were a problem in the beach house walls as well. I knew that mice had built nests in the walls. Friends recommended 4' X 8' panels to seal the walls from ants and mice. This siding was readily available and inexpensive. I removed the cedar siding from the rest of the beach house, exposing the original white siding. I did not feel comfortable doing the siding myself. I found a part-time carpenter to assess the job. The beach house is leaning to the South and East. The siding was only available with vertical striping. This would not have been vertical unless it was installed to mask the lean of the beach house. The windows on the lower level were reframed and replaced to be square. One window on the upper level was also replaced. The other window had been replaced earlier due to storm damage. The siding was painted to match the original color of the beach house. The picture below was taken before the siding was painted. The carpenter also recommended that I heat the beach house to prevent the expansion and contraction due to freezing. I insulated the lower level. I added about 6 studs on the lower level to allow me to attach the insulation. I did get some bids for heating in the fall of 1996. I planned to get a building permit to do this work. I had an electrician install the existing electrical line into the lower level of the beach house. One circuit is connected to an outlet in the lower level. The other circuit connected to an outlet in the upper level. I tore out all the existing wiring, switches, and outlets. I did run some additional wire on the lower level when the insulation was installed. It is not connected to anything. I planned to get a permit and an electrician to complete this work in 1997. This has not been done. I removed the sheet rock from the walls and cleaned out the debris from the mice in the spring of 1997. I hired a carpenter to install a framework for insulation and sheet rock on the upper level. This project is probably 80% completed: I did not consider the work I was doing to be a covert operation. I did not t~ to hide anything from neighbors or friends. I tried to keep the yard and beach house area clean at all times during these repairs. I attempted to keep the visual appearance and footprint of the building and deck identical to the original structure. I also did not want to spend a lot of money on these repairs. I did a lot of the work myself. When I did need help, I found people who would work in their spare time for a fixed, hourly fee. I completed a variance application and submitted it to the City of Mound following a visit by the building inspector. It requested a variance on the work that had already been done and asked for a variance on fixing the screen porch and installing sewer, water, and heat. C I Response to the Planning Report dated July 14, ! 997 The work in the main house was done by a general contractor who received all the necessary permits. This project involved extensive plumbing, heating, and electrical work. I knew that permits were required for this work. I was not aware of additional permits for the carpentry. Perhaps I should have been knowledgeable o£ the permitting process ~rom this experience, but I was not. I did discuss a walkway or deck to cover the gap between the beach house and the retaining wall with the building inspector. I was told to remove the electrical and informed that a permit would be required to do additional electrical work. I was not informed that an additional permit was required for the deck. I assumed it was not. I had no plans to improve the beach house at that time. In fact, these discussions directly led to the maintenance that was done. The stairway and landing were repaired in June, 1989. The existing stairway and a portion of the landing were damaged by ice movement. I hired a contractor to repair the damage. I only asked that he design it to prevent this from occurring again. He did not inform me that a permit was required. Again, I assumed it was not. The deck and landing are not attached to footings. The stairs sit on concrete blocks on the ground. The landing sits on 4X4s which do have footings. The basic structural foundation of the beach house remains intact. The studs in the interior walls are not attached to the outside walls. They were put in to allow the sheet rock to be replaced. I'm sure they provide some structural benefit, but would be of no help if the original structure failed. The roof is an exception. The sheathing was replaced with new plywood. The framework was not. As I stated in my other document, I believe I should have contacted the building inspector when I found the damage was more severe than expected. The assertion Mr. Gordon makes regarding the intent and operation of the beach house is without merit. I specifically pointed out where the water and sewer had been connected to the beach house. I don't know what the owners planned, how it was used, or what caused the owner to disconnect them. Mr. Gordon certainly can't know. I requested sewer and water only because the variance was being submitted. No specific reference is made to heating, except a recommendation to not allow a gas line. There is a wood-burning stove and chimney in the beach house. They need to be updated to current codes to be used. There is no liner in 'the chimney and the stack is too close to the roof line. I was given a quote to upgrade it to code. I also know this would need a permit. Gas heat was looked at as a safer alternative. Our neighbors have supported and actively encouraged our maintenance of the beach house. Other beach and boat houses have been improved .on Cook's Bay and other nearby lake shore (see attachment). We do not believe we are being granted special privilege by our requests in the variance. The quote we received on the screen porch was for a replacement of the walls and door only. The lower deck is extremely dangerous. There are no railings on the deck entering the screen porch. We would like alternatives which would make this safer for the children who play in the beach house. ~. '1 ~DDRESS: SURVEY ON FILET LOT OF RF. CORD? YARD IlOUSE ......... :RONT FRONT SIDE SIDE ~KE oF BLUFF NO crrY OF MOUND - ZONING iNFORMATION SHEET =-----'=-=-' "~ONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: B1 '7,$00/0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14t 000/80 R3 SEE oRD. l! 30,000/11.00 EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUiRED-'--=~ DI REC11ON E W N S E W N S . s E N S E W 50' N S E W 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE'-~ LOT DEPTH: yAILIANCB J oR OTIIER DETACHED BUILDINGS SllED ..... NS E W FRONT N S E W 4' OR 6' N S E W sIDE 4' OR 6' N S E W 4' N S E W tEAR 50' N S E W LAKE 10' OR .'t0' TOP OF BLUFF 30% OR 40% DATED: 4FORMINO? yES I NO I ? BY: " This Zoning Information Sheet ~ n portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For ~or ~nfion, contact ~e City of M~nd Planning ~p~tment at 472~ , ._: .... t.' .... ... I 'L ..... ,.. .t~,~, r~ "' L / ~=' .-, '1 .... ~l~;l~J~-'-l:"l .:, L=,.I=/'~~~o ~0 ~ B : ' 'a'.. ' a ~. (~'~'-'-'', :.. / -, "1 ;1 F .... ' / / "/ ~ ~ . ~, .....~ ~/ ~ .... o getstatchap.pl at www.revisor, leg.state.mn.us Board Monitor. (p} One hundred citizens who reside within the jurisdiction of the local government unit may request the local government unit to reclassify a county or watershed on the basis of its percentage of presettlement wetlands remaining. In support of their petition, the citizens shall provide satisfactory documentation to the local government unit. The local government unit shall consider the petition and forward the request to the board under paragraph (o) or provide a reason why the petition is denied. Subd. 2. Road credit funding. At least 50 percent of money appropriated for road repair wetland replacement credit under this section must be used for wetland restoration in the seven-county metropolitan area. The board shall give priority to restoration projects that will: (1) intensify land use that leads to more compact development or redevelopment; (2) encourage public infrastructure investments which connect urban neighborhoods and suburban communities, attract private sector investment in commercial or residential properties adjacent to the public improvement; or (3) complement projects receiving funding under section 473.253. HIST: 1991 c 354 art 6 s 8; 1993 c 175 s 2' 1994 c 627 s 3' 1996 c 462 s 24 ' , ==103G.223 103G.223 Calcareous fens. Calcareous fens, as identified by the commissioner, may not be filled, drained, or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, unless the commissioner, under an approved management plan, decides some alteration is necessary. HIST: 1991 c 354 art 6 s 9 ==103G.2241 103G.2241 Exemptions. Subdivision 1. Agricultural activities. (a) A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (1) activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other payments under United States Code, title 7, sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991; (2) activities in a wetland that is or has been enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program under United States Code, title 16, section 3831, that: (i) was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or payment under United States Code, title 7, Tuesday, November 24, 1998 Page 15 of 76 3:13 PM getstatchap.pl at www.revisor, leg.state.mn.us sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to being enrolled in the program; and (ii) has not been restored with assistance from a public or private wetland restoration program; (3) activities in a wetland that has received a cormmenced drainage determination provided for by the federal Food Security Act of 1985, that was made to the county agricultural stabilization and conservation service office prior to September 19, 1988, and a ruling and any subsequent appeals or reviews have determined that drainage of the wetland had been commenced prior to December 23, 1985; (4) activities in a type 1 wetland on agricultural land, except for bottomland hardwood type 1 wetlands, and activities in a type 2 or type 6 wetland that is less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land; (5) aquaculture activities including pond excavation and construction and maintenance of associated access roads and dikes authorized under, and conducted in accordance with, a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1344, but not including construction or expansion of buildings; (6) wild rice production activities, including necessary diking and other activities authorized under a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1344; (7) normal agricultural practices to control noxious or secondary weeds as defined by rule of the commissioner of agriculture, in accordance with applicable requirements under state and federal law, including established best management practices; and (8) agricultural activities in a wetland that is on agricultural land annually enrolled in the federal Food, Agricultural, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, United States Code, title 16, section 3821, subsection (a), clauses (1) to (3), as amended, and is subject to sections 1421 to 1424 of the federal act in effect on January 1, 1991, except that land enrolled in a federal farm program is eligible for easement participation for those acres not already compensated under a federal program. (b) The exemption under paragraph (a), clause (4), may be expanded to additional acreage, including types 1,-2, and 6 wetlands that are part of a larger wetland system, when the additional acreage is part of a conservation plan approved by the local soil and water conservation district, the additional draining or filling is necessary for efficient operation of the farm, the hydrology of the larger wetland system is not adversely affected, and wetlands other than types 1, 2, and 6 are not drained or filled. Subd. 2. Drainage. (a) For the purposes of this subdivision, "public drainage system" means a drainage system as defined in section 103E.005, subdivision 12, and any ditch or tile lawfully connected to the drainage system. Page 16 of 76 Tuesday, November 24, 1998 3:13 PM getstatchap.pl at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us (b} A replacement plan is not required for draining of type 1 wetlands, or up to five acres of type 2 or 6 wetlands, in an unincorporated area on land that has been assessed drainage benefits for a public drainage system, provided that: (1) during the 20-year period that ended January 1, 1992: (i) there was an expenditure made from the drainage system account for the public drainage system; (ii) the public drainage system was repaired or maintained as approved by the drainage authority; or (iii) no repair or maintenance of the public drainage system was required under section 103E.705, subdivision 1, as determined by the public drainage authority; and (2) the wetlands are not drained for conversion to: (i) platted lots; Page 17 of 76 or (ii) planned unit, commercial, or industrial developments; (iii) any development with more than one residential unit per 40 acres. If wetlands drained under this paragraph are converted to uses prohibited under clause (2) during the ten-year period following drainage, the wetlands must be replaced under section 103G.222. (c) A replacement plan is not required for draining or filling of wetlands, except for draining types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands that have been in existence for more than 25 years, resulting from maintenance and repair of existing public drainage systems. (d) A replacement plan is not required for draining or filling of wetlands, except for draining wetlands that have been in existence for more than 25 years, resulting from maintenance and repair of existing drainage systems other than public drainage systems. (e) A replacement plan is not required for draining or filling of wetlands resulting from activities conducted as part of a public drainage system improvement project that received final approval from the drainage authority before July 1 1991, and after July 1, 1986, if: ' (1) the approval remains valid; (2) the project remains active; and (3) no additional drainage will occur beyond that originally approved. (f) The public drainage authority may, as part of the repair, install control structures, realign the ditch, construct dikes along the ditch, or make other modifications as necessary to prevent drainage of the wetland. (g) Wetlands of all types that would be drained as a part of a public drainage repair project are eligible for the permanent wetlands preserve under section 103F.516. The board Tuesday, November 24, 1998 3:13 PM getstatchap.pl at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us shall give priority to acquisition of easements on types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands that have been in existence for more than 25 years on public drainage systems and other wetlands that have the greatest risk of drainage from a public drainage repair project. Page 18 of 76 Subd. 3. Federal approvals. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (1) activities exempted from federal regulation under United States Code, title 33, section 1344(f) as in effect on January 1, 1991; ' (2) activities authorized under, and conducted in accordance with, an applicable general permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1344, except the nationwide permit in Code of Federal Regulations, title 33, section 330.5, paragraph (a), clauses (14), limited to when a new road crosses a wetland, and (26), as in effect on January 1, 1991. Subd. 4. Wetland restoration. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland restored for conservation purposes under a contract or easement providing the landowner with the right to drain the restored wetland. Subd. 5. Incidental wetlands. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland created solely as a result of: (1) beaver dam construction; (2) blockage of culverts through roadways maintained by a public or private entity; (3) actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland; or (4) any combination of clauses (1) to (3). Subd. 6. Utilities; public works. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (1) placement, maintenance, repair, enhancement, or replacement of utility or utility-type service if: (i) the impacts of the proposed project on the hydrologic and biological characteristics of the wetland have been avoided and minimized to the extent possible; and (ii) the proposed project significantly modifies or alters less than one-half acre of wetlands; (2) activities associated with routine maintenance of utility and pipeline rights-of-way, provided the activities do not result in additional intrusion into the wetland; (3) alteration of a wetland associated with the operation, maintenance, or repair of an interstate pipeline within all existing or acquired interstate pipeline rights-of-way; (4) emergency repair and normal maintenance and repair of existing public works, provided the activity does not result in Tuesday, November 24, 1998 3:13 PM I 1, getstatchap.pl at www. revisor, leg.state.mn.us additional intrusion of the public works into the wetland and does not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland; (5) normal maintenance and minor repair of structures causing no additional intrusion of an existing structure into the wetland, and maintenance and repair of private crossings that do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland; or (6) repair and updating of existing individual sewage treatment systems as necessary to comply with local, state, and federal regulations. Page 19 of 76 Subd. 7. Forestry. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (1) temporarily crossing or entering a wetland to perform silvicultural activities, including timber harvest as part of a forest management activity, so long as the activity limits the impact on the hydrologic and biologic characteristics of the wetland; the activities do not result in the construction of dikes, drainage ditches, tile lines, or buildings; and the timber harvesting and other silvicultural practices do not result in the drainage of the wetland or public waters; or (2) permanent access for forest roads across wetlands so long as the activity limits the impact on the hydrologic and biologic characteristics of the wetland; the construction activities do not result in the access becoming a dike, drainage ditch, or tile line; filling is avoided wherever possible; and there is no drainage of the wetland or public waters. Subd. 8. Approved development. A reml~c~m~nt p~n .~r wetlands is-~o[ ~eQui=ed f0~ de%efopme~t projects and ditch improvement projects in the state that have received preliminary or final plat approval or have infrastructure that has .~nstalled or has local si%~-p~n a'~roval, conditional use permits, or similar official approval by a governing body or government agency, within five years before July 1, 1991. As used in this subdivision, [infrastructnr~- meanS public water facilities, storm water an~-~anitar--v sewer pipinq, ou--tfai]s~ ie~-~s, ~u-l~erts, bri~, and any other work defined spe~-~i~ally ~y a local government unit as constituting a capital improvement to a parcel within the context of an approved development plan. Subd. 9. De minimis. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for draining or filling the following amounts of wetlands as part of a project, regardless of the total amount of wetlands filled as part of a project: (1) 10,000 square feet of type 1, 2, 6, or 7 wetland, excluding white cedar and tamarack wetlands, outside of the shoreland wetland protection zone in a greater than 80 percent area; (2) 5,000 square feet of type 1, 2, 6, or 7 wetland, excluding white cedar and tamarack wetlands, outside of the shoreland wetland protection zone in a 50 to 80 percent area; (3) 2,000 square feet of type 1, 2, or 6 wetland, outside of the shoreland wetland protection zone in a less than 50 Tuesday, November 24, 1998 3:13 PM SEP 03 1998 16:36 FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 832 2601 TO 917158391478--23 P.04×10 191 WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0115 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition). Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January 1989). Coward~n, et al. 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Criteria and Guidelines for Assessing Geologic Sensitivity of Groundwater Resources in Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991). United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Map for Minnesota. Minnesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology. State of Minnesota Watershed Boundaries - 1979 (a map). National Wetland Inventory maps (Un~ted Stairs Fish and Wildlife Service). Anderson and Craig, 1984, Growing Energy C. mps on Minnesota Wetlands: The Land Use Perspective. These documents are available through the Minitex in terlibrary loan system, except the National Wetland Inventory maps, which are available atMinnesotasoil and water conserva- tion district offices. None of the documents are subject to frequent change. Statutory Authority: MS ,v 14.06: 103B. l O1; 103B.$35..5 HiStory: 18 SR 274 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXE~ON STANDARDS. When considering ifa drain or fill activity qualifies for an exemption listed in a speci- fied clause of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2241, subdivision I, the. exemption stan- dards in part 8420.0120 apply. An activity is exempt if it qualifies for any one of the exemptions, even though it may be indicated as not exempt under another exemption. These exemptions do not apply to calcareous fens as identified by the commissioner. No exemptions apply to wetlands that have been previously restored or created as a re- sult ofa~ approved replacement plan. All such wetlands are subject to replacement on subse- quant drainage or falling. Nonexempt wetlands cannot be partially drained or filled in order to claim an exemp- tion or no-loss determination on the remainder. Therefore, no exemptions or no-loss deter- minations can be applied to the remaining wetland that would not have been aPPlicable be- fore the impact. Present and future owners of wetlands ' drained or ftilecl without replacement under an exemption in part 8420.0120, subparts I, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 23, can make no use of the wetland area after it is drained or filled, other than as agricultural land, for ten years after the draining or filling, unless it is first replaced under the requirements of Minnesota Statutes. section 103G.222, paragraph (g). Also, for ten years the wetland may not be restored for replacement credit. At the time of draining or filling, thc landowner shall record a notice of these restric- tio. n.s in the office of the county recorder for the county in which the project is located. At a nununum, the recorded document must con~n the name or names ofthelandowners, a legal the exemption,"' .... y~-~ t~nuu exptres, me name ot the ~oca~ government wltich certified if such oecturecl, the signatures of all owners, and. an acknowledgment. A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption in part 8420.0120 shall ensure that: water; A. appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the B. the a~vity does not block fish activity in a watercourse; and C. the activity is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103H. Statutory Authority: MS s 14.06; 103B. IO1; 103B.3355 History: 18 SR 274 ~12 852 2601 TO 917158391478--25 P.05/10 8420.0120 WETLAND CONSERVATION 192 8420.0120 EXEMPTION STANDARDS. Subpart 1. Exemption (1). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (1) activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pastttre grasses or legumes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other payments under United States Code, title 7, sections 1421 to 1469. in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991. Documentation, such as Agricultural .Stabilization and Conservation Service aerial photographs, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service form 578 or equivalent, United States Department of Agriculture records, or affidavit of landowner must be required by tim local government unit to show and use as evidence for this exemption. Set aside land used for this exemption must be wetland types 1 and 2. Subp. 2. Exemption (2). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (2) activities in a wetland that is or has been enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program under United States Code, title 16, section 3831, that: (i) .was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding, or was quired to be set aside to receive price support or payment under United States Code, title 7, sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to being enrolled in the program; and (ii) has not been restored with assistance from a public or private wetland restoration program. Federal documentation that the wetland is or has been enrolled in the federal conserva- tion reserve program may be used as evidence for the exemption. The landowner must also meet the same requirements of subpart 2 for thc exemption stated in Minnesota Statutes, sec- tion 103G.2241, subdivision 1, clause (1), except that the years required are at least six of the ten years preceding the year of enrollment in the conservation resorve program. The land- owner must also state in writing that the wetland was not restored with assistance from a pub- lic or private wetland restoration f~md, or that the restoration was done under a contract or easement providing the landowner with the right to'drain the restored wetland. Subp. 3. Exemption (3). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (3) activities necessary to repair and maintain existing public or private drainage sys- tems as long as wetlands that have been in existence for more than 20 yeaxs are not drained. This exemption allows maintenance which fills wetlands that have been in existence for more than 20 years when the wetlands are located within the right-of-way acreage of the cliteh or within a one rod width on either side of the top of the ditch, whichever is greater, and the filling is limited to the side casling of spoil materials resulting from the maintenance and the spoil deposition area is permanently seeded into grass after maintenance activities are completed. The owner must provide documentation that the wetlands which will be partially or completely drained by the maintenancc have not existed for more than 20 years. Aerial photographs from two years of normal or wetter than normal water level condi- tions showing no wetland are one form of acceptable documentation. If aerial photographs are unavailable, a sworn affidavit may be submitted. Otherwise, thc landowner must show that the maintenance will not reduce the wetland from what it was 20 years ago or more. This exemption includes lowering the elevation of previously placed tile when made necessary by land subsidence provided the lowering does not drain wetlands. Subp. 4. l~xemption (4). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (4) activities in a wetland that has received a commenced drainage determination pro- vided for by the federal Food Security Act of 1985, that was made to the county agricultural stabilization and conservation service office prior to September 19, 1988,'and a raling and any subsequent appeals or reviews have determined that drainage of the wetland had been commenced prior m December 23. 1985. The landowner must provide Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service doc- uments confu'ming that the county agricultural stabilization and conservation service ofl~ce determined before September. 19, 1988, that drainage had begun before December 23, 1985, and that the determination has not been overmnled by subsequent appeal or review and is not currently under adminisu'ative review. SEP 03 1998 16:38 FR BRRR ENGiNEERiNG 612 832 2601 TO 917~58391478--23 P.0~?~0 193 WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0120 Subp. 5. Exemption (5). A replacement plan for wetlands is' not required for: (5) activities exempted from federal regulation under United States Code, tiflc 33, sec- tion 1344(f).' · ' The local government unit may certify the exemption only if the landowner furnishes proof of qualification for one of the exemp~ons from the Umted States Army Corps of Eng~ This exemption does not apply to a project with the purpose of converting a wetland to a nonwetland, either immediately or gradually, or converting the wetland to another use, or when the fill will r~sult in significant discernible change to the flow or circulation of water in the wetland, or partly draining it, or reducing the wetland are~ Subp. 6. Exemption (6). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (6) activities authorized under, and conducted in accordance with, an applicable general permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. United States Code, title 33, section 1344, except the nationwide permit in Code of Federal Regulations, title 33, section 330.5, paragraph (a), clause (14), limited to when a new road crosses a wetland,, and all of clause (26). This exemption is for nationwide permits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21,22, 23, and 25 issued under Code of Federal Regulations, title 33, section 330.5. The local gov- ernment unit may certify such an exemption only if the applicant furnishes proof of qualifica~ t/on for one of these nationwide permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Nationwide permit 14 for a new road does not qualify for this exemption, nor do nationwide permits under numbers not listed in this exemption. To qualify for a nationwide permit, the applicant for a United States Army Corps of En- gineers permit must meet any regional conditions imposecl by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and must obtain from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency an individual section 401 certification when required. Subp. 7. Exemption (7). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (7) act/vifies in a type I wetland on agricultural land, as defined in United States Fish and Wildlife Circular No. 39 (1971 extifion) except for botWmland hardwood type 1 wet- lands. The landowner must provide the same proofs required by the first paxagraph of subpa{t. 1. for lands abutting at least 50 percent of thc wetland's boundary. The local government umt may seek the advice of the technical panel a.s to whether the wetland is a type 1 wetland not of the bonomland hardwood type. The type of the wetland must be determined according to United States Fish and Wild- life Service Circular bio. 39 (1971 edition). Alternatively, the type of the wetland can be de- terrmned from the Cowardin (et al. 1979) classification sysm. m: PEM 1 A, PEMA, PEMJ, and PEM1J may be considered to be a type 1 wetland. This exemption applies if the wetland is all type 1 wetland, or is a combination of types 1 and 2 wetlands, on'agricultural land, and the type 2 wetland area is- less than two acres. Subp. 8. Exemption (8). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (8) activities in a type 2 wetland that is two acres in size or less located on agricultural land'The landowner must provide the same material as required from the landowner by sub- part 7. The local government unit may seek the advice of the technical panel as to whether the wetland is a type 2 wetland, two acres or less in size. . The wetland size is the area within its boundary. The boundary must be determined ac- cording to the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating'Jurisdictional Wetlands" (January 1989). The type of the wetland must be determined according to United State Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition). Alternatively, type can be determined from the Cowardin (et al. 1979) classification system: PEM1B and PEMB may be consid- ered to be a type 2 wetland. This exemption applies if the wetland is a type 2 wetland, or is a combination of types 1 and 2 wetlands, on agricultural land, and the type 2 wetland area is less than two acres. Subp. 9. Exemptioo (9). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: 8420.01~) WETLAND CONSERYATION 194 (9) activities in a wetland restored for conservation purposes under a contract or ease- ment providing the landowner with the right m drain thc restored wetland. The landowner must provide a contract or easement conveyance or affidavit demon- strafing that the landowner or a taxxtecessor restored the wetland for conservation purposes but retained the fight to subsequently drain the reswred wetland. Subp. 10. Exemption (10). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (10) activities in a wetland created solely as a result of: (i) beaver dam construction; (ii) blockage of culverts through roadways maintained by a public or private entity; (iii) actions by public entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wet- land; or (iv) any combination of (i) to (iii). · Wetland areas created by beaver activities may be drain.ed by gm.o.vi.n.g tho. se m. _a_t.e_n,'~s placed by beaver. Drainage is permitted by removing or moving mamnam moc~ang msum~u roadway culverts and drainage structures. Addit,onal excavalaon or removal of other materi- als is not permitted unless it can be shown by a~rial photographs that the proposed activity will not drain or fill wetland that was them before the beaver dam was built or the culvert became plugged. Wetlands may be drained or filled if the landowner can show that the wetland was · crc. amd solely by actions the purpose of which was not to create the wetland and were ap- proved, permitted, funded, or overseen by a public entity. Impoundments or excavations constructed in nonwetlands solely for the purpose of ef- fluent treatment, swrm water retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water quality improvements, and not as part of a compensawry wetland mitigation process that may, over time, take on wetland characteristics, ~ also exempted. Subp. 11. Exemption (11). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (11) placement, maintenance, repair, enhancement, or replacement of utility or utility- type service, including the transmission, distribution, or furnishing, at wholesale or retail, of natural or manufactured gas, electricity, telephone, or radio service or communications if: (i) the impacts of the proposed project on the hydrologic and biological characteristics of the wetland have been avoided and minimized to the ex~nt possible; and (ii) the proposed project significantly modifies or alters less than onc-half acre of wet- lands. For new placement and enhancement of existing facilities, the utility must demonstrate that the character and extent of the impacts of the proposed project on the wetlands have been minimized and that the entire project will, cumulatively, drain or fill less than one-half acre of wetland. For maintenance, repair, .~_d re. placem, eut,...t.he local governs, e.n.,t u~.'t, m_ay is__s~uee ar~Seean~ sonal or annual exemption certification or the uRhty may proceca wlmout tocm gownm~u unit certification if it is car~g out the work according to best management practices. WOrk of an emergency' nature may proceed as necessary and any drain or fill activities shall be ad- dressed with the local government unit after the emergency work has been completed. Subp. 12. Exemption (12), A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for:. (12) activities associated with routine maintenance of utility and pipeline fights-of- way, provided the activities do not result in additional intrusion into the wetland. This exemption is for maintenance, but not expansion, of the rights-of-way in which utilities are located. Spill re. mediation is not routine maintenance. The local government unit may issue a seasonal or annual exemption certification o.r the utility may proceed if it is carrying out the work according to best management pracnces. Work of an emergency nature may proceed as necessary and any drain or fill activities shall be addressed with the local government unit after the emergency work has been completed. Subp. 13. Exemption (13). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (13) altexation of a wetland associal~xt with the operation, maintenance, or repair of an interstate pipeline within all existing or acquired interstate pipeline fights-of-way. SEP 03 1998 16:40 FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 852 2601 TO 917158391478--23 P.08×10 195 WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0120 This exemption includes construction activities. Subp. 14. Exemption (14). A r~placement plan for wetlands is not requited for: (14) temporarily crossing or entering a wetland to perform silvicultural activities, in- cluding timber harvest as part of a forest management activity, so long as the activity limits the impact on thc hydrologic and biologic characteristics of the wctland; thc activities do not result in'thc construction of dikcs, drainage ditches, tile lines, or buildings; and thc timber harvesting and other silvicultural practices do not result in the drainage of the wetland or pub- lic waters. This exemption is for temporary-use roads constructed for the primary purpose of pro- viding access for the conduct of silvicul.tural activities. Subp. 15. Exemption (lb'). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (15) permanent access for forest roads across wetlands so long as the activity limits'thc impact on the hydrologic and biologic characteristics of thc wetland; thc construction activi- ties do not result in the access becoming a dike, drainage ditch or tile llnc; with filling avoided wherever possible; and there is no drainage of the wetland or public waters. This exemption.is the same as the exemption in subpart 14, cxccpt that it is for perma- nent forest roads which arc roads conslructed for the primary purpose of providing access for the conduct of silvicultural activities. Subp. 16. Exemption (16). A rcplaccmcnt plan for wetlands is not required for: (16) activities associated with routine maintenance or repair of existing public high- ways, roads, slxeets, and bridges, provided thc activities do not result in additional intrusion into thc wetland outside of the existing right-of-way. This exemption does not prevent repairing washouts or adding material to the driving surface provided the road's occupancy of the wetland outside of the existing fight-of-way does not increase. Subp. 17. Exemption (17). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (17) emergency repair and normal maintenance and repair of existing public works, provided the activity does not result in additional intrusion of the public works into thc wet- land and do not result in thc draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland. This exemption applics to public works other than roads, such as buildings and bridges. Subp. 18. Exemption (18), A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (18) normal maintenance and minor r~pair of slxucmres causing no additional in~rusion of an existing slructure into the wetland, and maintenance and repair of private crossings that do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland. This exemption applies to private structures, such aa buildings and road crossings. Subp. 19. Exemption (19). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: ' (19) duck blinds. This exemption allows floating duck blinds and blinds on poles or pilings. This exemp- tion does not allow fill other than poles or pilings. Subp. 20. Exemption (20). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (20) aquaculture activities including pond excavation and associated access roads and dikes authorized under, and conducted in accordance with, a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water AcL United States.Code, title 33, section 1344, but notincluding buildings. Subp. 21. Exemption (21). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (21) wild rice production activities, including necessary diking and other activities au- thorized under a permit issued by the United State Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title33, section 1344. Documentation demonstrating that the exemption applies may include showing posses- sion of a United States Army Corps of Engineers permit for thc project. Subp. 22. Exemption (22). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: . (22) normal agficuitund practices to control pests or weeds, defined by rule aa either noraous or secondary weeds, in accordance.with applicable requirements under state and federal law, including established best management practices. SEP 0~ 1998 16:41FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 852 2601 TO 917158591478--25 P.09/10 8420.0120 WETLAND CONSERVATION 196 This exemption does not allow diking, ditching, tiling, or filling, or other control prac- tices that would result in the conversion of wetlands. Subp. 23. Exemption (23). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (23) activities in a wetland that is on agricultural land annually enrolled in the federal Food, Agricultural, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, United States Code, title 16, sec- tion 3821, subsection (a), clauses (1) to (3), as amended, and is subject to sections 1421 to 1424 of the federal act in effect on January 1,1991, except that land anrollcd in a federal farm program is eligible for easement participation for those acres not already compensated under a federal program. Documentation such as a written statement from the local Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service office that the proposed activity would not result in loss of eligibil- it'y for benefits under the farm program may be used as evidence for this exemption. If the activity would re, sult in loss of eligibility, the landowner cannot qualify for.the exemption by withdrawing from the program. Subp. 24. Exemption (24). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (24) development projects and ditch improvement projects in the state that have '~ ceived prelimimuy or final plat approval, or infrastructure, that h~.been ins,t~, led, or hav!ng local site plan approval, conditional use pernuts, or s~rmlar omcml approval t)y a govermng body or government agency, within five years before Suly 1,1991. In the seven-county met- ropolitan area and in cities of the first and second class, plat approval must be preliminary as approved by the appropriate governing body. Subdividers who oblained preliminary plat approval in the specified time period, and other project developers with one of the listed approvals timely obtained, provided approval has not expired and the project remains active, may drain and fill wetlands, to the extent doc- umented by the approval, without replacement. Those elements of the project that can be car- lied out without changing the approved plan and without draining or filling must be done in tlmt manner. If wetlands can be avoided within the terms of the approved plan, they must be avoided. For county, joint' county, and watershed district ditch projects, this exemption applies to projects that received final approval in the specified time period. Subp. 25. Exemption (2,5'). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (25) activities that result in the draim'ng or filling of less than 400 square feet of wet- lands. This exemption applies ffthe total wetland loss by draining and filling will be less than 400 square feet per year per landowner, and the cumulative impact by all persons on a wet- land over time without replacement after January 1, 1992, does not exceed five percent of the wctland's area. Statutory Authority: MS s 14.06: I03B. IOI; 103B.3555 l~story: 18 SR 274 PROCEDURES 8420.0200 DETERMINING LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The local government unit responsible for making exemption and no4oss determina- tions and approving replacement plans shall be determined according to items A to C. A. Outside the seven-county metropolitan area, the local government unit is the county or city in which the drain or fall activity is located, or its delegate. B. In the seven-county metropolitan area, the local government unit is the city, town, or water management organization regulating surface-water-related matters in the area in which the drain or fiji activity is located, or its delegate. The watershed management plan adopmd under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231, and related board rules will nor- really indicate the appropriate local government unit. Lacking an indication, the local gov- ermnent unit must be the city, town, or its delegate. C.//the activity in a wetland is located in two jurisdictions, the local government unit shall be the one exercising zoning authority over the project or if both have zoning au- SEP 1998 16:42 FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 852 2601 TO 919158391498--25 P. 10/10 197 WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0220 thority, the one in which most of the wetland loss will occur. If no zoning permits arc re~ quircd, the local government unit shall be the one in which most of the wetland loss will oc- cur. If an activity will affect wetlands in more than one local government unit, the board will coordinate the project review'to ensure consistency and consensus among the local govern- merit units involved. The board will resolve all questions as to which government entity is thc responsible authority, applying the guidelines in items A to C. Notwithstanding items A to C, the department shall be the approving authority for acti- vities associated with projects requiring permits to mine under Minnesota Statutes, section 93.481. Statutory Authority: MS s 14.06; 103B. IOI; 103B. 3355 History: 18 SR 274 8420.0210 EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS. A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland without replacement, ciaiming exemp- tion under part 8420.0120, may Contact the local government unit before beginning draining or filling activities for demrmination whether or not the activity is exempt. A landowner who does not request a determination may be subject to the enforcement provisions in part 8420.0290 and Minnesota Statutes, section 103/3.2372. The local government unit must keep on file all documentation and findings of fact concermng exemption determinations for a period of ten years. Local government units may offer exemption certificates as part of the wetland pro- gram within their jurisdiction. An exemption applies whether or not the local government unit chooses to issue certificates of exemption. If the wetland qualifies for an exemption, and the landowner requests a certificate of exemption, then the local government unit must issue one, The landowner applying for exemption is responsible for submitting the proof neces- sary to show qualification for the particular exemption claimed. The local government unit may place the decision authority for exemption applications with the zoning administrator, or establish other procedures it considers appropriate. The local government unit decision shall be based on the exemptions standards in part 8420,0120. If the decision requires a finding of wetland size or type, the local government unit should seek the advice of the technical panel n.~ described in part 8420.02~0. A landowner draining or filling a wetland under an exemption shall ensure that ap- propriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimen~tion of thc water, the drain or fill does not block fish passage, ~md the drain or fill is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103H. Statutory Authority: MS s 14.06; I03B. IO]; 103B. 3355 History: 18 SR 274 8420.0220 NO-LOSS DETERMINATIONS. A landowner unsure if proposed work will result in a loss of wetland may apply to the local government unit for a determination. A landowner who does not request a determina- tion may be subject to the enforcemnnt provisions in part 8420.0290 and Minnesota Statutes, .section 103G.2372. The local government unit must keep on File all documentation and find- rags of fact concerning no-loss determinations for a period of ten years. The landowner applying for a no-los~ demation is responsible for submitting thc proof necessm'y to show qualification for the ~ltim. The local government unit may pl~ the decision authority for no-loss applications with the zoning adminism~tor, or establish other proc~lUres it considers appwpriate. The local government unit shall issue a no-loss certificate if the landowner requests and if either A. the work will not drain or fill a wetland; TOTAL PAGE. 10 ** ....... - .... CITY OF MOUND -~-~-~ ENG. -~,,~ ~~03 ~, Sewer Service MH ~, ,z/_~, Distance:_.,z~_~z?p _~'_~'~ Length ~'Z z~ / Depth at P.L..,~.,..~:.' t'-' Ti-ed by, Data .... Length Block Water Service ,._Distance Size ....... Type Pipe Contractor Installed by Tied by Date, Additio~ f. Sewer Service s.,,,'o.~ MI4 ~ ~'-~ _Distance Length ~/, m ' _Depth at P.L.~_' Tied by Dar- Block_,-zi Contractor. Installed by_ ~ed by Water Service Distance _Size. Type Pipe_ Date 10/06/98 I 11:00 FAX No. CITY OF MOUND o-~ ENG. 002/003 Rio& Water Service Distance Size:: .Type Pipe Date Sewer Service ~ ~.~ - ~ Distance z~ ,- ~' ? ~'. Length 2,e. ,~ ~ Dep~ at P.L.~' Tied by Date. Length Contractor Installed by. Tied by NO. Betwee~ .22.... <..,.~ ~...and ~-- ~ ~ -JLot Sewer Service Length _~-~. ,, - Depth at P.L f.~' Contractor .ff--~ Instatled by_ -~--~,'~ '~/~- Tied by Date .... Rlock _'9/ MH Length Water Service Distance Size__Type Pipe___ Contractor Installed by Tied by Date CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL ~~ ~ JIM FACKLER, PARK DIRECT~~~' NOVEMBER 20, 1998 ~/ ~ DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION After the interviews at the DCAC Meeting, last night, it was recommended that Orv Burma be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Gordon Tulburg. This term would expire December 31, 1999. printed on recycled paper I: I: i' ,. ~ES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 17~ 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall. Members Present: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens; Councilmembers Hanus, Jensen and Weycker. Absent and excused: Mayor Bob Polston. Also P¥~sent: Councilmember-Elect Bob Brown; City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Gino Businaro and City Manager Ed Shukle. Proposed Wara Development in Minnetrista Ed Shukle indicated that water and sanitary sewer service are being requested by Wara Development and the City of Minnetrista regarding a proposed development on the north side of County Road 110 West in Minnetrista. Water and sewer service are available off of County Road 110 West in Mound. This matter had been at a previous Committee of the Whole meeting and the City Council had asked for additional information from the City Engineer regarding future costs associated with constructing a new well for the west side of Mound. John Cameron, City Engineer, was present and outlined what it would take for the water and sewer service in the proposed development to be connected to the City of Mound's service and what would be involved in locating a future well on the west side of Mound. The City Council did not raise an objection to the actual hooking up of this development to Mound's water and sewer services. However, they expressed the seriousness of not having a composting facility in Minnetrista that could service both communities. They further stated that it was imperative that discussions take place between both cities before any decision is reached on the request for utility services to the Wara development. They asked that the City Manager communicate their concerns to Wara Development and the City of Minnetrista before going any further. 1999 Proposed Budget City Manager reported on information discussed at Monday's special meeting. John Cameron indicated that the sealcoat program could be delayed for one year but that the Council should consider sealcoating four major streets in 1999. The Council asked the condition of those streets, Wilshire, Bartlett, Brighton and Tuxedo. Cameron indicated he would need to look at them before giving a definitive response. The Council asked that this be done and to have the staff report its findings at the Budget Hearing scheduled for Monday, December 7, 1998. The City Council then discussed the budget in detail and asked that the staff bring back, at the budget heating, a solution to accomplishing a 0% increase in the tax levy. There was consensus to add the city newsletter back into the budget as well as the contribution for Mound City Days fireworks. Also discussed was some money to be used for obtaining an assessment of the condition i Committee of the Whole Minutes November 17, 1998 Page 2 for the Island Park Hall. Further, there was interest in reinstating $25,000 for an annual cleanup day under the Recycling account. Other Business Councilmember Hanus asked the City Council to direct the Planning Commission to review the boathouse provision of the Zoning Code. This relates to a matter that was just before the Planning Commission and will be at the City Council meeting in December. The Council consensus was to have the Planning Commission study this matter and to make recommendations to the City Council on whether this provision should be modified. Upon motion by Weycker, seconded by Jensen and carded unanimously, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 24, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 24, 1998, at 7:30 PM, ink,Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Those present were:L~ayor Bob Po~ouncilmembers A~drea~Ahrens, Mark Hanus,Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. A~lso id attendance were: City'l~lanager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING. MINUTES WERE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING. 4462-4476 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- NOVEMBER 24, 1998 *C. APPROVE THEMINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 1998, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MINUTES WERE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING. *D. 4477 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 98-65, UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OFA NEW GARAGE, RICHARD KRYCK, 5986 SUNSET ROAD, PID 14-117-24 42 0065. SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998. *E. 4478 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM, ADDITIONAL PARKING AND CHANGES TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PIDS 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24 41 0011, 14-117-24 41 0052 & 14-117-24 41 0058. SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMB%~) 1998. *F. APPROVE REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REGRADE A PORTION KINGS ROAD AS IT RELATES TO ITS VACATION. (NOTE: POSC REVIEWED CASE AT ITS 11/12/98 MEETING AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO TWO CONDITIONS. PLEASE SEE MINUTES ENCLOSED). 4479-4488 _ .. ~ 0 .A~. . _ *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS. 4489-4508 5. CASE 9%31: VARIANCE CONTINUATION, TO ALLOW AFTER THE FACT IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BEACH HOUSE, ANN & BOB HUNT, 5319 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 28, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 70, PID 24-117-24 24 0025. (NOTE: PLANNING OMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL. HANUS MADE A REQUEST AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING THAT THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOATHOUSES BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION). 4509-4551 2 m MOUND CI'IY COUNCIL MINU'IES- NOVEMBER 24, 1998 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM~ CIT, I~ZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AN~ COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION RE: APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY. (NOTE: INTERVIEWS WERE HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998.) ORV BURMA WAS RECOMMENDED TO FILL 4552- 4555 THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF GORDON TULBERG, TERM EXPIRES 12/31/99. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for October 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 4556-4557 B. LMCD Mailings. 4558-4568 4569 Memorandum from Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven and SRA attorney, re: Wireless Telecom Tower Siting-Virginia Beach Case. D. "Policy Informer" published by the National League of Cities. 4579-4573 E. Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 1998. 4574-4577 F. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of November 12, 1998. 4578-4583 REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26 AND FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27 IN OBSERVANCE OF THE THANKSGIVING DAY HOLIDAYS. 3 MOUND cl'rf COUNCIL MINU'IF.S- NOVEMBER 14, 1998 R~ER; ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1998, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M., AL & ALMA'S. Please RSYP t0 Jodi by December 8~. REMINDER; TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998, 7:30 P.M. Continued hearing date is Monday, December 14, 1998. MOTION made by '~ , seconded by to adjourn at vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. P.M. The Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 4 I, . II Mound Planning Commiss!on Minutes November 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv Burma, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Bob Bittle, Ann Hunt, David Braslau, Pat Meisel, Bill Pinegar, Bob Brown, Ed Shukle, Bob Hunt, Mark Theide, and Dr. Pam Myers. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 26, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Burma stated that on page 11, fourth paragraph down should read, "Burma didn't recall that a stipulation was that the Geyen's could not use the vacant lot for their personal use." MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to approve the corrected Minutes of the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Michael recited the procedure for Public Hearings. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 97-31: VARIANCE CONTINUATION, TO ALLOW AFTER THE FACT IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BEACH HOUSE, ANN & BOB HUNT, 5319 BARTLETT BLVD, LOT 28, AUDITIOR'S SUBDVlSION 170, PID # 24-117-24 24 0025 Loren Gordon presented the case. As you will remember, the Commission in July of 1997 reviewed this case. The case involved variances to a number of structural repairs to a nonconforming lakeside accessory structure. The previous planning report and Commission meeting minutes are provided for your review. At that meeting, the case was tabled until an accurate survey was submitted by the applicant. Shortly thereafter, sent a letter dated July 16, 1997, asking to have the variance application Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 revoked. In addition, a second letter asked for permit approval for work completed to date on the beach house. This is a difficult case due to the number of improvements that have been completed of are in a state of completion. When this case was discussed at the Planning Commission last year the question of structural improvements and improvements to increase livability was discussed at length. The code stipulates that improvements which are structural in nature are not allowed to nonconforming structures. Structural work includes repair or replacement of roof sheeting and joists, replacement of stud walls, and repair or replacement to foundations. Livability items are those that do not add significant structural stability and are intended to be more aesthetic in nature. These would include insulation, carpeting, wall coverings (although they may provide some structural support), siding, and soffits. Staff's recommendation is intended to recognize that the beach house is a nonconforming structure and that it will eventually need to be removed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as stated above. Staff would also recommend the following actions be included as a part of the approval: 2, 3. 4. The owner be allowed to finish the walls with sheet rock or similar material; The roof joists that were installed be allowed to remain; The wiring be allowed to remain; The porch be removed and the exterior of that portion of the boathouse be resided to match the existing siding; The lower deck connecting the beach house be removed up to the stairway leading to the dock. No gas lines shall be extended to the beach house; The owner secure all required permits and approvals necessary for construction previously completed or to be completed as a part of finishing the interior. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the reasoning of why staff has recommended approval. Gordon stated that the case is very complicated given the existing situation. Gordon stated that if we recommend taking the sheathing and joists away, the building will be unusable. Michael stated that there have been times where staff has recommended denial and the Planning Commission has recommend approval. Hanus asked how big the deck is. Gordon stated that it is 333 square feet of deck, which is larger than permitted and there are two levels to it. Hanus questioned if the applicant wants to put gas line and water into the boathouse, how would it extend the life of the boat house. We need to protect the livable use. Gordon stated Mound Planning Commiss~n Minutes November 9, 1998 that with heating and cooling of the building, it changes the longevity of the building. Hanus questioned the office space. Gordon stated that a home occupation ordinance states a home occupation must be confined to the principle structure. Weiland asked if the water is put in, where would the water waste go. If sewer is then allowed, the building then increases _in the usability of it. Burma recalled the initial request last year with improvements around $15,000 worth of improvements were done without a permit. He feels that if it would have came in front of the Planning Commission before the improvements were done, he feels that it would not have had a favorable recommendation to do the improvements. Hanus asked what staff's recommendation was in 1997. Gordon recited the recommendation out of the minutes from page 81 of the packet. The current staff recommendation is consistent with last year's recommendation. Mueller asked about the lakeside porch. Gordon explained that the porch is on the lower lever and is in very poor shape. Michael commented on the usability of a boathouse. One does not need water and sewer in a boathouse. There was further discussion on the boathouse. Mueller stated that other communities have stricter ordinances on boathouses. Weiland stated that on page 59, to recommend no to items 1,2, 3, yes to 4, 5 & 6, and no to 7. He questioned if this is what the commission was looking at. Hanus commented that it would be a straight denial. Bob Hunt, 5319 Bartlett BIvd, Stated that the rafters were not replaced. The studs were put in to install insulation. There was sheetrock and electric in it originally. He stated that he did get a permit to replace the retaining wall. He took off the porch because it was unsafe. He explained what he removed pertaining to the interior studs. He commented on the electrical work that was done. Mueller asked Bob Hunt put himself on the Planning Commission side. Hunt stated that he had no intention of improving the boathouse. Mueller referred to an inspection notice dated 5-1-96 and was signed by Anne Hunt. Mueller stated that we have a ordinance stating that a permit cannot be obtained to do structural work to non-conforming structures. He sited what the City of Orono does with work done on non-conformities without a permit. Mound Planning Commiss;on Minutes November 9, 1998 Hanus asked how much of the sheathing was replaced. Hunt stated it was all replaced. Hanus asked about the sheetrock in. Hunt stated that he doesn't recall when the sheetrock was removed probably a year ago. Hunt stated that he did not do the existing deck, it was done prior to his purchasing the home. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to have any structual work be removed including the sheathing, rafters. Hanus asked if the Planning Commission would table the case until the ordinance is reviewed by the incoming City Council. Mueller and Burma withdrew their motion with the stipulation that the ordinance be reviewed by the new City Council and then at that time be brought back to the Planning Commission review it again. MOTION by Hanus to recommend City Council direct the Planning Commission to revisit all the current boathouse ordinance in the zoning code. Motion died for lack of second. MOTION by Mueller to table until there is a directive from Council. Motion died for lack of second. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to have any structural work be removed including the sheathing, rafters. Motion carried 5-1. Opposed: Hanus This case will go to City Council on November 24, 1998 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 10:58 p.m. 4 Company: Fax Number; Business Phone: Ed Shukle +1 (612) 472-0620 From: Fax Number: Business Phone; Home Phone: Orvin Burma +1 (612) 4722110 Pages; Date/Time; Subject; 11/10/98 10:31:51 PM Application for position on Mound Dock Commission Ed: At the ground breaking this morning Mark Hanus asked me if I was still interested in the position on the Dock Commission. He indicated that he had received nothing in his packet of candidate material on me and had assumed that I had withdrawn my name from consideration. Therefore, please see that the following information gets into the packets of those people involved in the decision. Thank you Orr Burma APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT To the MOLrND, MINNESOTA DOCK COlvflvIIS SION November 10, ] 998 Orvin David Burma 3011 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Residence: (612) 472-3989 Office: (651) 224-7631 Cell: (612) 860-2294 BACKGROUND Resident of Minnesota for 34 years Resident of Mound for 8 years Formerly served on Bloomin~on Youth Commission Served on Printing Week Committed of the Printing Industry of Minnesota QUALIFICATIONS Participant in the Commons Dock Program in Mound as a non-abutting dock holder Serve on the Mound Planning Commission Have the time, the desire and the experience to be a contributing member of the Commission. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Oct. 1998 83.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Oct. 1998 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,271,520 0 638,479 (633,041) 50.21% 4,780 20 4,173 (607) 87.30% 105,300 16,343 106,791 1,491 101.42% 950,850 6,569 572,464 (378,386) 60.21% 50,650 911 10,643 (40,007) 21.01 % 85,000 7,939 67,698 (17,302) 79.64% 71,000 108 29,047 (41,953) 40.91% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 194.350 1,055 11,457 (182.893) 5.90% TOTAL REVENUE 628,813 ~ (1.336.198) 51.88% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 360,220 53,701 358,073 (2,147) 99.40% 118,920 5,995 104,031 (14,889) 87.48% 1,530,000 145,643 1,380,825 (149,175) 90.25% 451,000 46,619 369,115 (81,885) 81.84% 924,000 82,579 831,808 (92,192) 90.02% 5,100 0 6,500 1,400 127.45% 77,300 15 73,689 (3,611) 95.33% 11/1611998 rev98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Oct. 1998 83.33% Oct. 1998 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 71,610 5,152 Promotions 4,000 0 Cable TV 3,000 0 City Manager/Clerk 210,970 14,562 Elections 13,200 702 Assessing 62,450 2 Finance 172,710 10,344 Computer 18,550 772 Legal 86,460 9,214 Police 990,170 70,257 Civil Defense 4,250 0 Planning/Inspections 173,280 19,381 Streets 420,820 39,460 City Property 103,380 4,918 Parks 192,380 11,517 Summer Recreation 37,290 0 Contingencies 45,000 2,521 Transfers 167.430 13.952 67,324 4,000 4,221 173,497 6,389 62,285 150,755 16375 87 275 759 493 5 378 153 898 374 560 81 267 177 920 0 40,674 139.525 PERCENT VARIANCE~~EJ~ 4,286 94.01% 0 100.00% (1,221) 140.70% 37,473 82.24% 6,811 48.40% 165 99.74% 21,955 87.29% 2,175 88.27% (815) 100.94% 230,677 76.70% (1,128) 126.54% 19,382 88.81% 46,260 89.01% 22,113 78.61% 14,460 92.48% 37,290 0.00% 4,326 90.39% 27.905 83.33% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 83.00% Area Fire Service Fund 360,220 Recycling Fund 126,830 Liquor Fund 215,200 Water Fund 445,400 Sewer Fund 981,020 Cemetery Fund 6,710 Dock Fund 76,660 20,844 235,929 124,291 65.50% 7,547 123,191 3,639 97.13% 15,750 179,475 35,725 83.40% 32,656 358,392 87,008 80.47% 75,854 870,178 110,842 88.70% 345 5,540- 1,170 82.56% 3,933 86,128 (9,468) 112.35% Exp-98 11/1611998 G.B. ,,a, I ,i, Ii RECEIVEO NOV 'l 3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, November 18, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock 11/25/98 Regular Board meeting has been cancelled due to the Thanksgiving. · 11119/98 LMCD Office Open House (4-7 P.M.). · Update of 10/28/98 Executive Session to discuss performance of Executive Session READING OF.MINUTES - 10/28198 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A) Minnetonka Yacht Club (Site 1), staff recommends approval of 1998 renewal w/o change application; B) Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Ordinance Amendment, Third reading of an ordinance relating to launching of with watercraft infested with zebra mussels; B) Update on 11/17/98 Sheriff's Water Patrol Annual Joint & Cooperative Agreement meeting; c) D) (*) Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; Additional Business; n EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes of the 11/13/98 meeting (handout); B) 11/13/98 meeting report; C) Additional Business; .Ii il, Ge e 8. 9. 10. FINANCIAL - .. A) Audit of w3uchers for payment (1111198 - 11115198); B) Additional Business; -- '~_. -- SAVE THE LAKE A) (*) Minutes from the 11117198 "STL" Advisory Committee meeting (handout); B) 11/17198 meeting report; Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION A) Appointments for 1999: · Auditor Selection · Legal Counsel · Prosecuting Attorney · Official Newspaper · Bank Depository Resolution for fiscal year 1999 B) Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1998 DRAFT LAKE ~TONKA CONSF_~RYA~ON DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ?:00 PM, Wednesday, October 28, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood; Lili McMillan, Orono. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members Absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock · The 11/11/98 Regular Board meeting has been rescheduled to 11/18/98 due to Veterans Day. · The 11/25/98 and 12/23/98 Regular Board meetings have been cancelled due to the holidays. noted the Regular Board meeting scheduled in December will be on 12/9/98. · The LMCD/Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol annual meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, 11/17/98, at 7 A.M. in the LMCD office. He READING OF MINUTES - 9/23/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to approve the minutes of the 9/23/98 Regular Board meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.). There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda 1. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. 1998 EWM Harvesting Program, update from Project Manager Gene Strommen. Strommen summarized the 1998 EWM Harvesting Program. He made the following comments: · The harvesting equipment is currently being analyzed and repai? by Air Hydraulic Systems and Marsh Gabriel. He noted he believed the work is commendable and should pay off in the future by reducing downtime for routine "~e lVn.6etonka Conservation District Regular BOard 1Vleeting October 28, 1998 Page 2 maintenance. · The harvesting crew worked one-week less this year; however, they operated a similar number of hours due to the minimal days cancelled due to inclement weather. He noted 611 acres were harvested in first cut, with an additional 96.25 acres harvested in second cuts in Carmans, Phelps, and Gideon Bays. · Increased calls regarding milfoil growth were received after the harvesting was completed due t6 'lower water levels and water clarity. He noted staff worked with a private contractor to provide some relief to riparian owners in Gideon Bay whose docks were blocked in due to the weeds. · Hennepin Parks continued to provide a harvester for part-time use during the harvesting season. He noted it was used only two weeks thissummer due to some power concerns they had because their hydraulic fluids were conve, rted to biodegradable. The Board discussed whether there are cost benefits to share trucking costs with private contractors on the lake. The idea of the District purchasing a truck was discussed as an alternative to bidding a contract annually. Staff noted the annual trucking bid the past few years has been around $14,000. The consensus of the Board was to continue awarding bids for trucking rather than purchasing one. The work conducted by American Hydraulics Systems on harvester #1 took approximately 21/2 weeks to complete. He noted a meeting was held with them upon completion of this harvester and that they had some delays relating to parts. He added the cost of analyzing and repairing harvester #1, not including the cost of reassembling a thruster, was $7,757 including parts and labor. He noted the experience gained from this harvester should be beneficial when conducting maintenance on the remaining three harvesters. He concluded this does not include the time spent on the harvesters by Gabriel. · A modification was done to harvester #1 on the storage conveyor and the front-end loader. He noted a Teflon coating was installed to minimize the impact where metal is wearing on metal. He added if this is successful, it makes sense to modify the three remaining harvesters next year. · Diesel oil is being analyzed by Cummins Diesel. He stated samples have been sent in and will not be changed unless there appears to be problems. · Environmental degradable oil is being considered and might be used on two of the harvesters next year. He noted he would keep in contact with Suerth and staff on the status of this. · All the harvesters will have all new thruster motors and have been modified to have a pressure shutoff to minimize the impact of hydraulic spills. · He concluded all work conducted by American Hydraulic Systems should be completed on the four harvesters in the next few weeks unless there are parts problems. .~ The.Board thanked Strommen for the detailed Report. B. Additional Business. ~.ere was no additional business. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 28, 1998 ® .... Page WATER STRUCTURES A. Minnetonka Yacht Club (Site 1), staff recommends approval ~of 1998' renewal w/o change application. Babcock noted he and staff had recently met with MYC representatives regarding their 1998 multiple dock license. He noted they agreed to renew it without change; however, they changed the classification of watercraft being stored at the facility on the renewal application. He recommended the Board table this agenda item to allow staff to work this out with the applicant. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to table the agenda item to allow staff to work with the applicant to further clarify classification of watercraft being stored at the multiple dock facility. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Staff recommends approval of 1998 renewal w/o change multiple dock licenses as outlined in 10/23/98 memo. MOTION: Weft moVed, Foster seconded to approve the 1998 multiple dock license applications, without change, as outlined in the 10/23/98 staff memo. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to launching of watercraft infested with zebra mussels. Babcock introduced the agenda item noting there was significant Board discussion of the draft ordinance amendment at the 9/23/98 meeting. He introduced Jay Rendall, Coordinator of the DNR Exotic Species Program, who outlined some questions and concerns regarding the draft ordinance amendment in a 9/23/98 memo. Rendall stated he was in attendance at the meeting after receiving an invitation from District staff. He noted the 9/23/98 memo outlines some questions and concerns the DNR has with the draft ordinance amendment. He added he believed the Board might have some questions in response to this letter. He concluded the DNR would like to work with the District on a cooperative basis to address some of the expressed concerns. Lake ~Vllnnetonka Conservation District Regul~_ Board Meeting October 28, 1998 Page 4 Babcock clarified he believed the intent of the draft ordinance was if there are visible signs of "adult zebra mussels on watercraft, there is a need for additional time out of the water to allow for drying. Rendall concurred it is a high risk to water of the State if there are visible adult zebra mussels. He noted current State law prohibits the placing of a watercraft and trailers in a lake with adult zebra mussels visible on'them. He added State law also prohibits the transportation of watercraft with visible adult zebra mussels. He questiofied how the District would know when watercraft have come from infested waters and how the owner of the watercraft would know the distinction in laws from lake to lake. He suggested the District have local law enforcement agencies enforce State laws rather than create new ordinanLes. Babcock stated in addition to requiring all visible zebra mussels be removed, . the draft ordinance would require watercraft be kept out of the water 30 days or be inspected by a qualified --representative of the DNR. He asked whether the DNR be willing to cooperate when these situations occur. Rendall stated the DNR would be willing to cooperate in the training of personnel and in unique circumstances. He.added; however, it would be difficult to check boats on a regular basis. He noted it might make more sense to cite watercraft owners when there are visible zebra mussels on a Watercral~, ........ ' . ~-- · Babcock questioned how the DNR incurs additional overhead in enforcing this ordinance amendment in addition to State law. Rendall stated that would depend on how the District intends to enforce the ordinance amendment. .- Babcock stated he believed the District would be willing to consider reimbursing the DNR to · inspect a watercraft with adult zebra mussels on it. He added if the DNR cannot provide this support, he believed the Board supports the 30 days waiting period if a watercraft has adult zebra mussels attached to it. He noted this is a proactive approach up and beyond State law. Foster stated he believed the draft ordinance is not in conflict with State laws. He noted he supports the ordinance because he believes it is reasonable and that most watercraft operators will comply if they are aware of it. He stated this would involve an aggressive public relations campaign. -- Rendall stated he would like to discuss the watercraft incident that occurred this past summer. 'He noted a citation could have been issued; however, it probably would have been the last watercraft to voluntarily go to the Washdown station. :' Babs:&k stated he believed the problem with the incident this summer that should have been cited is that the boat was transported from another state with zebra mussels on it. Lai~e Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 28, 1998 Page 5 Rcndall questioned whether citing watercraft owners would bc c~ntcr-productivc with the intent of the District of washing the watercraft. Babcock stated he believed a major distinction between State law and thc draft ordinance is that state law prohibits the transportation, whereas, the ordinance deals with launching. LeFevere stated although State law was not enforced this summer with thc incident, it was beneficial because it assisted in keeping the watercraft from being launched. He noted thc focus of this ordinance is to address watercraft that have adult zebra mussels on them and to require either a 30 day drying period or an inspection by a qualified DNR representative. He concluded District staff is currently not trained to determine whether there arc zebra mussels in parts of thc watercraft that are not visible. Rcndall stated if District personnel know where to look and clean, the equipment should be sufficient without requiring a waiting period. He noted the DNR could wain District personnel to conduct these inspections. . Wort questioned the DNR's position on the draft ordinance. He noted all the amendment would aCC°mplish is to enhance State law. Rendall stated thc DNR would be willing to train a District representative to become qualified to inspect these watercraft. He added the DNR does not have the staff to be on call to check on all these incidents. Foster questioned how other exotic species, such as hydrilla, arc a greater threat to Lake Minnetonka than zebra mussels because of the proximity of infested waters. Rendall stated he understood the concern with zebra mussels; however, he cautioned focusing too much on one exotic when drafting ordinances. Wert stated the ordinance could be amended if it needs to be expanded to other exotic species. Partyka stated he believed the* DNR has responsibility to assist the District in thc limited occasions of needing an inspection of watercraft that have adult zebra mussels on it. Rendall stated he is becoming more aware of the intent of the draft ordinance. He added that originally he believed it was an extension of the ordinance that relates to special events. He noted the position of the DNR might change because of this. Rascop questioned whether the District would be properly trained by the DNR to ensure they are fully certified to testify before a judge if the situation occurs. LeFevere stated thc intent of thc draft ordinance is to prohibit thc launching of a watercraft that has been identified as having adult zebra mussels on it until the watercraft has dried for 30 days or has been inspected by a qualified DNR representative. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 28, 1998 ' Page 45 ~~'~McMillan stated there appears to be some hang-ups with language in the. draft Ordinance. She suggested Rendall take it back and discuss it with his staff. Ahrens questioned what the DNR provides to the'public for public awareneSs' when wafi~r has been determined to be infested with zebra mussels. - o o · Rendall stated State mandate requires 20,000 hours annually for the Conservation' COrp :to randomly check boats leaving infested waters. He added there is signage at these waters identifying what exotic Specie has infested the water. He noted there are targeted radio and television spots for select audiences who typically own the watercraft which are used on such waters. - MOTION: Wert moved, Foster seconded to approve second reading of the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (10/1/98 Nelson reviewed the audit of v0Uchers~fOr payment.~ submitted~ c-7:l'Ie 'noted'the'vouchers between 10Il and 10/15 were already sent out due to the cancellation of the 10/14/98 Regular Board meeting. . MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. September financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the September financial summary and balance sheet. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to accept the September financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimouSly. .C,~/~'~A, dditio al in n Bus ess. : Nelson noted staff included a current breakdown of LMCD inveStment: He added hi and Nybeck would be discussing the Merrill Lynch CMA investment in the near future with the :: Lak~ Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting ·-"' October 28, 1998 Finance Committee to explore other investment options. Page 7 ADMINISTRATION A. Update on appointment of Board representatives whose terms expire in 1998. Babcock introduced the agenda item noting that staff sent letters to Mound, Orono, Spring Park, and Victoria informing them their Board member term expires in 1998. He noted Nelson and Eggers have been re-appointed to three-year terms while Ahrens has been re-appointed to a one- year term. He questioned why Ahrens was appointed to a one-year term when the enabling legislation requires three-year appointments. Staff was directed to investigate this to see if the Mound appointment could be adjusted to a three-year term. B® Report from nominating committee with recommendations for Board Officers for 1999. Rascop stated he recently talked to Dahlen and Gilman regarding Board Officers for 1999. noted it is their recommendation the Board consider the following nominations: Douglas Babcock- Chairman · Bert Foster- Vice-Chairman · Eugene A. Partyka- Secretary · Craig W. Nelson- Treasurer He Babcock opened nominations to the floor other than those recommended by the nominating committee. He closed nominations after there were none. MOTION: Ahrens moved, Wert seconded to accept the nominations for Board Officers in 1999 as recommended by the nominating committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock expressed his appreciation to the Board for their voice of support in re-electing him Chairman of the District for one more year. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 6. SAVE THE LAKE A. Minutes from the 10/20/98 "STL" Advisory Committee. McMillan stated the Advisory Committee is active again and met for the first time on 10/20/98. She summarized the key points of the meeting: · Gene Strommen, Don Germanson, and staff members were in attendance. She noted she intends to start the Advisory Committee small and expand membership as it progresses. Lake ~M1nnetollka Conservation District Regula~B~ r.d Meetin~ October 28, 1998 ' Page 8 On-going projects were discussed including water clarity testing with Hennepin Parks and the Winter-Ice Cleanup Project. Other projects discussed that might merit Save the Lake funds included improving water quality on selected bays, improvements to the zebra mussel boat spraydown program, and increased Water Patrol hours during weekends and holidays. ._: There was discussion on a book coming out in Sanuary written by Carol Henderson from the DNR called "Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality". She noted Henderson would like to present a slide show on Lake Minnetonka this spring. She added he has had an LCMR grant funded to establish project sites to illustrate how shoreline can be improved using lakescaping. She concluded he would like one of these sites to be established on Lake Minnetonka. There was discussion on the Save the Lake R..~g,n.i~on..D!nner and i. mproving attendance. She stated the Committee wants to focus on issues ~at are related to Lake Minnetonka. Babcock stated he envisioned making the Recognition Dinner more entertaining than in recent years. McMillan noted the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 11/17/98, at 10:30 a.m. in the District office. MOTION: Ahems moved, Seurth seconded to accept the 10/20/98 Save the Lake Advisory Committee minutes as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. '-' There was no additional business. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · A calendar of District related events and meetings was included in the Board packet. He noted the Board Workshop/Planning Session scheduled for 11/4/98 was not included on the November calendar. The consensus of the Board was to cancel Workshop/Planning meetings scheduled in November'and December. · The quarterly newsletter recently sent to Board members was also sent out to the LMCD lake communities. Staff was directed to forward the newsletter to all mayors and city council members in the future. · An open house was recommended for Thursday, 11/19/98, to allow the public to visit the new office. The Board agreed to the date recommended and set the open house times between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. ~ 8.~ OlD BUSINESS i I, l..i~e Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 28, 1~98 s Page 9 There w~s no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION- Performance Evaluation of Executive Director MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to go into executive session at 9:03 p.m. to conduct a performance evaluation of the Executive Director, as allowed by the Open Meeting Law. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Gene Part~ka, Secretary c H A R T E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com RECEIVED NOV 1 3 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SRA City Manager/Administrator/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommcn November 12, 1998 Wireless Telecom Tower Siting--Virginia Beach Case JAMES M. STROMMEN ' A~torney al L~w Dire~a Dial (612) 337-9233 cm~il: isu'ommen(~kcnncdv-~r4ven.com You are no doubt aware of the recent United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision favorable to cities, AT&T Wireless v. City Council of Virginia Beach (copy available upon request). I am sending this memo to SPA members because different cities have been interpreting the decision in different ways based on articles and word of mouth discussion. In my view, some of these interpretations might not be accurate. The following are some thoughts: This is by far the most favorable case to local government units in the wireless telecom tower siting area since passage of the Telecommunications Act, and perhaps the Sprint v. City of Medina ease upholding moratofiurr~. Every case on wireless telcom tower siting will turn on its own unique facts and this case is not binding on any court in Minnesota. It will be considered and inevitably the decision should assist local government units. Cities have been free to prohibit towers or antennas in residentially zoned districts before the Virginia Beach decision. The Virginia Beach decision strengthens that position somewhat, but there is no blanket right of local government units to prohibit towers or antennas fi'om any particular zoned district. That issue ultimately depends on whether a need for a site is demonstrated in a particular area, and only that area. If so, a local government unit may be required to open up the previously prohibited area for a site. The Virginia Beach decision now makes that proposition less certain. The Virginia Beach case gives new credence to a previous unsupported argument that strong local opposition can constitute substantial evidence for denying a conditional use permit. Minnesota state law, however, may have more strict requirements on that issue than Virginia or the Fourth Circuit. The Virginia Beach decision greatly strengthens the right of local government units to consider the aesthetic impact of any tower and deny on that basis. But the aesthetics standards should be specific in the ordinance, not general. The Virginia Beach decision tends to support a more flexible determination of what constitutes "substantial evidence" and a "written decision" under the Act. It does not equate the tW6 with requiring a statement of written findings and conclusions. The better practice is to be thorough however. Note, however, that recent decisions in Minnesota by Judges Montgomery and Tunheim have been consistent with the national trend to be harsh on cities in their denials of tower site applications. The above bullets address some of the anecdotal interpretations I have heard. I hope you find this helpful. RECEIVED NOV 1 2. 1998 November, 1998 National League-of Cities National Municipal Policy This e_d, ition of the Policy Informer is intended to provide a final report on actions taken by the National League ot Cities six Steering Committees this year in response to the priorities set by the Policy Committees last March. This report provides you with a brief summary of the National Municipal Policy amendments and resolutions each committee will recommend for adoption by the Policy Committees at the Congress of Cities this December in Kamas City, Missouri. It is intended to not only report back to every member about the work and accomplishments of each committee to the directives you set, but also to ensure that members can prepare for the issues set for debate, amendment, and adoption at the Congress of Cities. A schedule of NLC's six Policy Committee meetings is listed on page 4. Our nation is entering a period of one of the most phenomenal changes in its history. The accelerated developments in information technology and telecommunications are forever changing the shape and role of cities. These changes are diminishing the relevance of states' and even nations' boundaries, making the role of cities more important than ever before. So the policies elected municipal leaders set will have a disproportionate impact on the future of cities, the nation, and the world. This Informer is but a glimpse of what is to come. At this stage of the National League of Cities' policy cycle, the Policy Committees will vote on recommendations forwarded from each of their respective Steering Committees. Afterwards, the decisions of each Policy Committee will be reviewed by the Resolutions Committee. Finally, the recommendations of the Resolutions Committee will be available for ~ consideration by each NLC voting delegate at the Annual Business meeting on Saturday, December 5. A copy of the "Procedures for Adoption of NLC Policy" at the Annual Business-Meeting is included in this mailing. Policy proposals from each Steering Committee are described below. Please contact NLC's Office of Policy and Federal Relations at (202) 626-3020 if you have any questions about these policy recommendations. From all of NLC's 1998 Policy Committee Chairs ... Mayor Francis Duehay CED Chair Council Member Jen'y Wall HD Chair Mayor Jim Naugle EENR Chair Vice Mayor Michael Keck PSCP Chair Council Member Maxine C. Brown FAIR Chair Mayor Ken Bart T&C Chair Thank you very much for your participation in NLC's policy process. You helped establish the following policy priorities for 1998, and these recommendations are up for your approval. We hope that you continue to be a vital part of the National Municipal Policy! ~lO Transportation & Communications NLC's Transportation and Communications Steering Committee focused on protecting municipal authority and public rights-of-way in the fields of communications, cable, and land use. The committee adopted newly proposed N'LC policy to read: "Federal and state laws and regulations should recognize, respect, and not restrict local government authority." The action came as part of a broad set of policy recommendations on cable and telecommunications and a presentation and lively discussion on land use. Resolutions on public safety spectrum, aviation safety and security, and federal preemption of land use and police power authority over railroads were also recommended for adoption at the Congress of Cities. New policy proposals for communications issues include: · urging the promotion of reasonable and affordable access to all public telecommunications networks by any telecommunications provider in order to ensure nondiscriminatory, universal service throughout service areas. · opposing excessive late fees charged to consumers by communications services providers and urging the federal government to establish guidelines for fair and reasonable rates; and · urging increased opportunities in the communications field for women and minorities. Energy, Environment and Natural Resources The EENR Steering Committee is recommending policy changes with respect to environmental justice, electric utility restructuring, recycling, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and stormwater, along with new policies on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles, water quality goals, Pfiesteria, and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Changes proposed to the Environmental lustice section of the policy are designed to address EPA's recent Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI (of the Civil Rights Act) Administrative Complaints Challengqng Permits by calling for involvement of local governments in processes which may result in the denial of permits for the conduct of local government responsibilities and to assure continued economic development at the local level. On Electric Utility Restructuring, the Steering Committee is proposing new policy to guarantee that deregulation will bring benefits to all ratepayers through federal regulation of market power, transmission lines, and customer information. The policy recommendations in the Clean Air section are to incorporate the provisions of a resolution approved last year on CAFE standards and to encourage greater federal Participation in the development and availability of alternative fuels. The Steering Committee is also proposing minor revisions in the Recycling policy. And finally, the Steering Committee proposes changes in the Water Ouali .ty section to clarify NLC's support for national clean water standards, to incorporate last year's resolution on Pfiesteria as permanent policy, to add a new section addressing the recent Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program calllr~g for equitable treatment of municipalities in efforts to attain water quality standards in impaired waterbodies, to re-emphasize equitable treatment of municipalities in the stormwater policy, and to include water quality standards issues in the CSO section. The EENR Steering Committee is also proposing adoption of four Resolutions: Global Climate Change, calling for greater local participation in efforts to reduce greenhouse gases; FecJeral Facility Participation in Local Stormwater Utili .ty Fees in response to recent court decisions invalidating the applicability of such fees to federal facilities; Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Abandoned Mine Lands Pro,am. calling for full funding of the programs. In addition, the City of Denver is proposing a resolution opposing the Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Urban Communities. Community and Economic Development The CED Steering Committee finalized proposals on fair housing, regionalism and sprawl during its fall meeting. The policy recommendations underscore the importance of transportation, housing, land use, and economic Policy Informer Page 2 development in successful approaches to comprehensive planning and the resolution of. area-wide challenges througlx reglonalism. The CED policy defines the concept of regionalism as the "interlocking relationship among inner cities, suburbs, edge cities, and contiguous rural areas which combine into local economic regions that together fill out our nation's geographic borders." The committee reiterated its position that regionalism is a dynamic policy, not a static term, detai!ir~g some specific concerns regarding the federal role in regionalism, such as .appropriating funds for regional pilot prbgrams, forming an information clearinghouse of 'best practices' for jurisdictions looking to create local economic alliances, and correcting laws and regulations that inhibit regionalism. The steering committee also reviewed its current policy on fair housing and local land use and zoning authority to address concerns regarding group care facilities. Proposed revisions support the efforts of the President's Fair Housing Council that was established in 1994 to ensure that all relevant federal programs and activities support a coordinated str,a, tegy to advance fair housing. The steering committee adopted a revised resolution on federal housing laws impacting local zoning authority that tracks the provisions in the language NLC proposed to amend the original version of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1998 (H.R. 3206). Two other ?roposed resolutions on housing were passed in support of the low income housing tax credit and Section 8 reform legislation. Finance, Administration and Intergovernmental Relations The FAIR Steering Committee took action on each of the top priority areas selected by the FAIR Policy Committee last March at the Congressional City Conference: municipal revenue authority, Social Security, and federal preemption of municipal authority. On the priority of preserving municipal revenue authority, the FAIR Steering Committee primarily concentrated on the subject of goods and services sold via the Intemet and the resulting loss of sales tax revenue. The committee agreed that federal legislation is required in order to efficiently collect this revenue and, as in the area of mail order sales, the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to pass legislation to require vendors to collect these taxes, which are owed already owed by the purchasers, under existing lam The corem/tree forwarded a policy amendment to the N-LC Board at its mid-year meeting in order to provide NLC representatives negotiating room while continuing to assert municipal concern in this area and to slow a rapidly growing hemorrhage of sales from main-street businesses. To address the long-term solvency of Social Security, the steering committee recommends that Social Security be allowed to invest in a diversified stock portfolio in addition to the federal, corporate and municipal securities that NLC already advocates. Such investments are to be made by a federal board with a degree of independence comparable to that now enjoyed by the Federal Reserve Board. Paired with existing NLC policies regarding an income-based evaluation of benefits, taxation and restraint in the measurement of the consumer price index, the recommended policies would close the long-term Social Security deficit. The committee will recommend retaining NLC' s opposition to mandatory Social Security coverage for municipal employees. In the field of preemption, the committee judged that long-standing policies were sufficient to provide direction to N-LC' s lobbyists in this most important area. Besides general policies, specific preemptions are already treated individually on a subject-by-subject basis throughout the various chapters of the National Municipal Policy. The committee also will propose resolutions and policy amendments concerning the tax-exemption of bonds for electricity, federal laws serving as impediments to municipal annexation, shielding municipalities from liability due to year 2000 computer problems, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. MHuman Development Children's policy, health care, and education were the three areas assigned to the Human Development (MD) Steering Committee by the MD Policy Committee at the Congressional City Conference. In response, the committee will recommend policy amendments in each of these areas. In the area of childr~'s policy, the committee is recommending deletion of state and local responsibilities from the National Municipal Policy, which is intended to be a federal policy document, and broader dissemination of these suggested roles in other NLC vehicles, such as targeted publications and the Internet. Policy Informer Page $ On the subiect of health care, th~ committee ks -~commending language rein/orcing long-standing policy ,vocating expansion of Medicaid to serve more of the medically indigent. The committee is reasserting NLC's position in support of single-payer universal health care and recommends language that needed reforms to control the cost of Medicare not create barriers to the eventual conversion to such a universal system. The committee reviewed the policy stateifients of a number of local government education organizations and, as a result, recommends a fine-tuning of NLC' s existing education policies. In the biggest change, the committee recommends new policy advocating an increased federal role in the provision of early childhood development and education services for children from birth to age three. NLC policy has for years advocated availability of Head- Start to all children from ages 3 to 5. Other policy amendments and resolutions will be offered in the areas of municipal impacts of tobacco settlements and federal job creation. Public Safety and Crime Prevention The National League of Cities' Public Safety & Crime Prevention Steering Committee finalized its policy deliberations on terrorism, 9-1-1 emergency services, and federal public safety grants. The Steering Committee will recommend: both policy and a resolution urging the Administration and Congress to implement a comprehensive action plan for counterterrorism, designating a central agency to coordinate resources between federal, state, and local governments. Training for local first responders, equipment, and information and intelligence sharing are also addressed within the policy proposals; a resolution that supports the efforts of the federal government to expand access to enhanced 9-1-! technology in local communities and improved wireless 9-1-1 service; the resolution makes clear that N-LC opposes any federal preemption caused by legislation that revokes the authority of state and local officials to determine where public safety technology or towers should be sited. The resolution states that NLC opposes any federal legislation that would mandate upgrades in emergency communication technology in cities and towns without proper federal funding; and a special subcommittee report with recommendations on policy topics including juvenile records, corrections, substance abuse and drug control, and municipal fire policy; this subcommittee completed a review of the entire Public Safety & Crime Prevention Policy chapter of the National Municipal Policy. Policy Informer Page 4 If you are interested in applying for a seat on a Steering Committee, you must fill out an application. To receive an application, call Lesley- Ann Rennie at (202) 626-3176. Applications will also be available during the Conference in the Policy Office, Room 2203, or at the Credentials Booth in the Registration Area. All applications, in order to be considered, must reach NLC on or before December 11, 1998. Remember, in 1999, a new Committee will be formed. Applications will also be accepted for the new committee. Here ks a brief description. The Information, Technology, and Communications (ITC) Policy Committee has jurisdiction over issues surrounding telecommunications and information systems, electronic commerce and taxation, geographic information systems, and other technology services provided by local governments. The ITC Committee also works in conjunction with six other policy committees of the National League of Cities to develop uniform policies on crosscutting issues that affect the interests of multiple committees. Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv Burma, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Bob Bittle, Ann Hunt, David Braslau, Pat Meisel, Bill Pinegar, Bob Brown, Ed Shukle, Bob Hunt, Mark Theide, and Dr. Pam Myers. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 26, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Burma stated that on page 11, fourth paragraph down should read, "Burma didn't recall that a stipulation was that the Geyen's could not use the vacant lot for their personal use." MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to approve the corrected Minutes of the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Michael recited the procedure for Public Hearings. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 97-31: VARIANCE CONTINUATION, TO ALLOW AFTER THE FACT IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BEACH HOUSE, ANN & BOB HUNT, 5319 BARTLETT BLVD, LOT 28, AUDITIOR'S SUBDVlSlON 170, PID # 24-117-24 24 0025 Loren Gordon presented the case. As you will remember, the Commission in July of 1997 reviewed this case. The case involved variances to a number of structural repairs to a nonconforming lakeside accessory structure. The previous planning report and Commission meeting minutes are provided for your review. At that meeting, the case was tabled until an accurate survey was submitted by the applicant. Shortly thereafter, sent a letter dated July 16, 1997, asking to have the variance application Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 DRAFT revoked. In addition, a second letter asked for permit approval for work completed to date on the beach house. This is a difficult case due to the number of improvements that have been completed of are in a state of completion. When this case was discussed at the Planning Commission last year the question of structural improvements and improvements to increase livability was discussed at length. The code stipulates that improvements which are structural in nature are not allowed to nonconforming structures. Structural work includes repair or replacement of roof sheeting and joists, replacement of stud walls, and repair or replacement to foundations. Livability items are those that do not add significant structural stability and are intended to be more aesthetic in nature. These would include insulation, carpeting, wall coverings (although they may provide some structural support), siding, and soffits. Staff's recommendation is intended to recognize that the beach house is a nonconforming structure and that it will eventually need to be removed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as stated above. Staff would also recommend the following actions be included as a part of the approval: 2. 3. 4. o The owner be allowed to finish the walls with sheet rock or similar material; The roof joists that were installed be allowed to remain; The wiring be allowed to remain; The porch be removed and the exterior of that portion of the boathouse be resided to match the existing siding; The lower deck connecting the beach house be removed up to the stairway leading to the dock. No gas lines shall be extended to the beach house; The owner secure all required permits and approvals necessary for construction previously completed or to be completed as a part of finishing the interior. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the reasoning of why staff has recommended approval. Gordon stated that the case is very complicated given the existing situation. Gordon stated that if we recommend taking the sheathing and joists away, the building will be unusable. Michael stated that there have been times where staff has recommended denial and the Planning Commission has recommend approval. Hanus asked how big the deck is. Gordon stated that it is 333 square feet of deck, which is larger than permitted and there are two levels to it. Hanus questioned if the applicant wants to put gas line and water into the boathouse, how would it extend the life of the boat house. We need to protect the livable use. Gordon stated 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 DRAFT that with heating and cooling of the building, it changes the longevity of the building. Hanus questioned the office space. Gordon stated that a home occupation ordinance states a home occupation must be confined to the principle structure. Weiland asked if the water is put in, where would the water waste go. If sewer is then allowed, the building then increases in the usability of it. Burma recalled the initial request last year with improvements around $15,000 worth of improvements were done without a permit. He feels that if it would have came in front of the Planning Commission before the improvements were done, he feels that it would not have had a favorable recommendation to do the improvements. Hanus asked what staff's recommendation was in 1997. Gordon recited the recommendation out of the minutes from page 81 of the packet. The current staff recommendation is consistent with last year's recommendation. Mueller asked about the lakeside porch. Gordon explained that the porch is on the lower lever and is in very poor shape. Michael commented on the usability of a boathouse. One does not need water and sewer in a boathouse. There was further discussion on the boathouse. Mueller stated that other communities have stricter ordinances on boathouses. Weiland stated that on page 59, to recommend no to items 1, 2, 3, yes to 4, 5 & 6, and no to 7. He questioned if this is what the commission was looking at. Hanus commented that it would be a straight denial. Bob Hunt, 5319 Bartlett Blvd, Stated that the rafters were not replaced. The studs were put in to install insulation. There was sheetrock and electric in it originally. He stated that he did get a permit to replace the retaining wall. He took off the porch because it was unsafe. He explained what he removed pertaining to the interior studs. He commented on the electrical work that was done. Mueller asked Bob Hunt put himself on the Planning Commission side. Hunt stated that he had no intention of improving the boathouse. Mueller referred to an inspection notice dated 5-1-96 and was signed by Anne Hunt. Mueller stated that we have a ordinance stating that a permit cannot be obtained to do structural work to non-conforming structures. He sited what the City of Orono does with work done on non-conformities without a permit. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998 Hanus asked how much of the sheathing was replaced. Hunt stated it was all replaced. Hanus asked about the sheetrock in. Hunt stated that he doesn't recall when the sheetrock was removed probably a year ago. Hunt stated that he did not do the existing deck, it was done prior to his purchasing the home. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to have any structual work be removed including the sheathing, rafters. Hanus asked if the Planning Commission would table the case until the ordinance is reviewed by the incoming City Council. Mueller and Burma withdrew their motion with the stipulation that the ordinance be reviewed by the new City Council and then at that time be brought back to the Planning Commission review it again. MOTION by Hanus to recommend City Council direct the Planning Commission to revisit all the current boathouse ordinance in the zoning code. Motion died for lack of second. MOTION by Mueller to table until there is a directive from Council. Motion died for lack of second. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to have any structural work be removed including the sheathing, rafters. Motion carried 5-1. Opposed: Hanus This case will go to City Council on November 24, 1998 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 10:58 p.m. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1998 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, Norman Domholt and Christina Cooper, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present was Secretary Kristine Kitzman. The following interested citizens were also present: Mayor Elect Pat Meisel and Council Member Elect Bob Brown. Commissioner Bev Botko was absent. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Motion made by Casey seconded by Weycker to approve the minutes of the October 8, 1998 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as amended below. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Page 7, paragraph 3: Strike the first line "Weycker noted the intent from Steven Behnke of Fine Line Design Group." 2. Page 9, paragraph 3, second to last sentence: "...people as possible who would like to help on the rink attendant (changed from supervision) part of this project." WELCOME NEW MEMBERS Fackler introduced newly appointed Commissioners Norman Domholt and Christina Cooper. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as submitted with the following amendments: 1. Item 7a: Discussion of Vacated Public Lands 2. Item 7b: Open floor for comments and ideas from new members and guests. REVIEW: 1998 SUMMER PARK & BEACH PROGRAM, TIM PIEPKORN WESTONK.~_ COMMUNITY SERVICE Tim Piepkom, Westonka Community Service, was not present at this time, and it was suggested to delay this subject to later in the meeting. Later in the meeting it was decided to postpone this item to the December meeting, as Mr. Piepkorn was still not present. REVIEW: 1998 CAPITAL OUTLAY PURCHASE~ Fackler reviewed the 1998 proposed capital outlay expenditures as detailed in his staff report. He explained that the only outstanding project is Depot Improvements. Storm damage has caused budget problems. Fackler stated that it is possible to put more Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 12, 1998 capital into the Depot Improvements in December, bardng any additional storm damage or emergencies. Meyer stated concerns regarding the lights at the Depot that are not in working order. Fackler assured the Commission that people are working on that problem. Fackler also stated that vehicle maintenance is a large concern, as some of the City vehicles are nearly ten years old. Fackler noted that tree removal due to storm damage is a very large expense this year, and has taken up more of the budget than originally thought. Meisel wondered why the expense is coming from capital outlay rather than the general fund. Casey wondered why the parks fund is not reimbursed. Fackler explained that FEMA reimburses the general fund, not the park fund. Meyer then asked Fackler to explain the commons issues for the edification of the new members. Fackler explained how much lakeshore the City has, and the City responsibility for upkeep of the common areas. Meisel asked where the rent from the Depot goes. Fackler stated it goes into the general fund. Weycker then raised the question of why the rent goes to the general fund when the cost for upkeep and repair comes out of the park fund. Meyer stated that in January or February there will be a report about usage and capital generated by City docks and the Depot. Weycker then brought up the subject of renovation at Island Park Hall. Meisel wondered if this project would be eligible for Federal grants. Weycker stated she is working on getting it on the National Historical Register, but it takes a long time to do this. The first step was to prove use, and several uses were found for the building, to make it worth renovating. Weycker wondered if it could still be a histodc building if it is not in the National Register and suggested this be checked into. Weycker then brought up the grant application process, and all the pitfalls and "Catch 22" situations that exist in it, such as the money needed to get information on how much money is needed for the renovation. There have been some vague estimates about what may be needed, but a more detailed plan is necessary. Weycker also pointed out that this is the first year that the building was not used as a polling place and there were many calls from the community wondering why. Brown then asked about the amount of funding for things like picnic tables and playground equipment. He suggested that the City utilize organizations to build these things as opposed to such a large monetary outlay. 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 12, 1998 Meyer stated that this has been discussed, and a workshop is needed to make a fist of groups, such as lions club etc., and begin to approach them regarding this type of work. Meisel then stated that there may be some problems using any type of gambling funds, and asked if anyone would object to that. No Commissioners voiced objections, but Meisel pointed out that there may be some private cltlzens who may ol3ject to use o~ these funds. DISCUSS: SKATING RINK Meyer stated he has a letter asking for community support in the form of rink attendants, as them is no funding to hire a dnk attendant. Domholt asked if there were insurance issues if City trucks are driven onto a lake to make skating areas. Fackler stated that it was actually the location that was the issue, as there tends to be thin ice in the bay, and a large amount of snowmobile traffic. A different location may not have as many insurance concerns. Brown then commented that an area on a lake poses mom threat to children by snowmobiles than an enclosed rink. Meyer stated that there is an outside rink proposed, but more discussion is needed for the location. He also stated that Mound maintains three small rinks, but is looking for a location to cater more to activities for adults and mid-teen kids. This item will be pursued more this winter. Brown then asked about Walner Park and whether it would be possible to flood the outfield for skating in the winter. Fackler stated that this would have a negative impact on the grass in the outfield in the Spring and Summer. Meyer stated that the proposed rink needs no more funding, just volunteers for rink attendants. He explained that the flooding, electric, and the other nominal fees are going to be handled by public support or volunteers. Attendant's wages are the largest consideration, and can be waived if there is enough public support. Cooper asked why them was no rink at Swenson Park. Fackler stated that there used to be one, but it was taken out, possibly with the plan that all skating/hockey rinks may eventually be moved together to one location. Weycker brought up concerns that hockey and recreational skating do not mix, and it would be better to keep them in their own areas (maybe share a warming house, but not skating area). Cooper expressed concern that the Hockey Association would not support recreational skaters using the warming house. Casey indicated support of many small rinks for recreational skating, as kids need a place they can walk to in order to go skating as often as possible. Weycker answered that there are no concrete plans right now, and a mom detailed plan is needed before discussing locations or actual dollars for the problem. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 12, 1998 Meyer then summed up this years' concem: that there be enough public support for fink attendants, and this will be the deciding factor for recreational skating with a published set of hours for this year. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR KINGS LANI= Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon was not present, but Fackler had information regarding the request for vacation of roads. This request entails a portion of Kings Lane. City Engineers want an approval of public lands permit to regrade. This was approved by the Council, subject to approval by the City Engineer, and tthe POSC. Fackler recommended adding amendments to include erosion control measures and re-seeding the area. Brown and Weycker explained the location of the regrade, and that the changes to public lands will be very slight. Cooper wondered why this was under the jurisdiction of Parks, and Fackler explained that this area is open space, not docking, which is why it falls under Parks to approve. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker, to approve a Public Lands Permit for grading on unimproved Kings Lane, as recommended, with the following stipulations: 1. Reseed the area after the regrade. Erosion control and/or stabilization measures be taken to avoid any further encroachment onto public lands. Motion carried unanimously. OPEN FLOOR FOR COMMENTS/IDEAS FROM NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS Brown questioned the terms for Domholt, noting the memorandum stated that his term is until December, 1998, then he needs to be reappointed. Meyer explained that Domholt and Cooper filled vacant terms, and were appointed for original length of those terms. Discussion followed regarding length of terms, appointment method, and questions presented by Brown were answered to his satisfaction. Casey then asked to hear from guests any suggestions to make the Commission more effective. Meisel suggested more work sessions to include different commissions. Weycker stated that City Council asked commissions once if they wanted to address the Council. Parks voted yes unanimously, but the meeting was canceled. Meisel stated that she would like to see all commissions, Council, and Staff to meet possibly two times per year. Timing is always a factor for a meeting of this size, but Meisel would like to see it be a priority. There would be less wasted time if decisions 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 12, 1998 have input from all sides at each stage, rather than hours in one commission, to be "shot down" in Council. Brown and Meisel expressed a desire to "clean up" the ordinance book. Weeding out the old and obsolete, and adding or changing where ordinances seem to be lacking. Also they would like to see recommendations on budget cuts taken from commissions and Staff, rather than being arbitrary by Council or department heads. Meyer did note that last year, the Parks Commission took a more active role in some parks by going to the park to do some clean up and miscellaneous work that Staff hadn't gotten to yet. When the citizens living around the parks realized who they were and why they were there, they received a lot of public input and questions about the parks. He stated it was a very good experience. DISCUSS: DECEMBER POSC AGENDA Fackler stated the following will be on the December 7 agenda: 1999 Budget; 1998 Summer Park & Beach Program, Tim Piepkom; and Comprehensive Plan. Meyer asked if a workshop should be scheduled before the next meeting regarding the other funding sources and park needs. Weycker suggested waiting until after the holidays. It was decided that January would be a better month for this workshop. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) J) k) I) City Council Minutes COW Minutes LMCD Information DCAC Minutes Monthly Events Calender Rita Pederson letter of resignation Misc. Park & Recreation Information Information Island Park Hall Comp. Plan Update (City Planner will attend December POSC meeting) Planning Commission Minutes Memo from John Dean, City Attorney regarding Chester Park Memo from Jim Fackler, Parks Director regarding Commission Terms REPORTS: a) City Council Representative Weycker reported that the Council did not get notified of the interviews for Norman Domholt and Christina Cooper, which is why they were not present. 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 12, 1998 Weycker stated the Council also discussed the issue of the street vacation but nothing was laid out clearly enough, which brought up a lot of discussion. It was decided, however, that the people in the Seton development can come back for another variance if the water rises or changes in any other way. Weycker reported that Al & Almas was also discussed. Them was no public attendance at the City Council meeting. Weycker stated that she thinks there was a meeting at Al & Almas to discuss the concerns directly with the public, which helped put the public's concerns to rest. Casey wondered about Shelly Bergland, and asked if there was any news on her issues. Weycker stated that Bergland needed to hire a surveyor, and the City is waiting to hear from her with that information. Meyer asked if Cooper and Domholt would take over Rita's information on the Island Park Hall renovation, and take on the project. Both agreed, and copies will be forwarded so they can proceed. b) Park Director Fackler reported that all the equipment is ready for winter. Also, that he will not be attending the December meeting. ADJOURN Motion was made by Weycker, seconded by Domholt to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 6